ORDER S.K. Dhaon, J. - This petition, at the instance of an existing permit-holder, raises the question; whether the relevant Transport Authority has jurisdiction to include an additional route in a stage carriage permit in proceedings under section 58 of the M.V. Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the renewal of that permit? 2. A permanent stage carriage permit was held by the petitioner on the route Babarpur-Sahayal via. Dibiyapur and Dinwamau (hereinafter referred to as the route). In Feb. 1977 Transport Authority concerned deleted the portion of the route between Babarpur and Dinwamau from the permit as, according to it, the said portion formed part of a notified route. The petitioner acquiesced in the act of the deletion of the said portion from his route. The Transport Authority on 24-3-1980 renewed the permit for the portion between Sahayal and Dinwamau only. The petitioner again remained inactive and continued to operate his vehicle on the said portion of the route only during the life of the permit. The renewed permit was to expire on 30th Dec. 1982. The petitioner made an application and prayed that the same may be renewed for the portion of the route between Sahayal-Dibiyapur i.e. the original route Sahayal-Dinwamau plus the portion between Dinwamau and Dibiyapur. The Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit for the portion between Sahayal and Dinwamau only. In appeal, the appellate-Tribunal maintained the order of the Transport Authority and took the view that the permit could be renewed only for the portion of the route between Sahayal and Dinwamau. 3. Section 58(2) of the Act provides that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. The submission is based on this provision. It is contended that the procedure for the grant of a permit as envisaged in sub-s. (3) of S. 57 having been gone through. there was no impediment in the way of the authorities below to renew the permit for the route as prayed for and they failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by not doing so. This contention, though attractive, at the first blush cannot withstand even a slight scrutiny. Sub-sec. there was no impediment in the way of the authorities below to renew the permit for the route as prayed for and they failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by not doing so. This contention, though attractive, at the first blush cannot withstand even a slight scrutiny. Sub-sec. (4) of S. 58 (added by Act No. 56 of 1969) provides, inter alia, that where a permit has been renewed after the expiry of the period thereof such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry. Obviously this provision can have no application in a situation where a permit is being granted for the first time. In sub-sec. (1) of S. 58 it is provided that stage carriage permit shall be effective without renewal for such period, not less than 3 years and not more than five years, as the relevant Transport Authority may specify in the permit. The provisions as contained in sub-section 111 and (4) of S. 58 cannot be reconciled with each other if it is accepted that at the stage of the renewal of a permit a new route can be included in it It cannot be the intention of the legislature that a permit, the document issued by a competent authority (S. 2(20) of the Act), can have two periods of validity. One with respect to the route for which it is being renewed and the other with respect to the route which is being included for the first time by way of a fresh grant. Such an interpretation will not only violate the well known principle of harmonious construction of a statute but will also make the provisions of the Act unworkable. 4. In the instant case if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted the result will be that the permit for the portion of the route between Sahayal and Dinwamau will be effective with effect from 31st Dec. 1982 for a period of three years or five years, as the case may be, while the same document will be valid for the portion of the route between Dinwamau and Dibiyapur for a period of three years or five years, as the case may be, with effect from the date of the issue of the same for that portion. In any case, the permit cannot be made effective for the portion between Dinwamau and Dibiyapur with effect from 31st Dec. In any case, the permit cannot be made effective for the portion between Dinwamau and Dibiyapur with effect from 31st Dec. 1982. 5. Before the addition of sub-s. (4) in S. 58 of the Act a matter came up before the Supreme Court where the controversy was whether a permit renewed under sub-sec. (2) of S. 58 was a continuation of the old permit or should be treated a fresh permit. In the Supreme Court also the submission was based on sub-sec. (2) of S. 58. After taking into consideration the relevant rules particularly R. 184 framed by the State of Madras, their Lordships observed :- .....a reading of the relevant provisions of the Act and of the Rules leads indubitably to the conclusion that a renewal is a continuation of the permit previously granted. The fact that the grant of the renewal is not a matter of course, or that is open to the authorities to impose fresh conditions at the time of the renewal does not, when the permit is in fact renewed, alter its character as a renewal." (See V.C.K. Bus Service Ltd v. The Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore, AIR 1957 SC 489 , This case not only fortifies the view taken by me, but also sounds a death-knell of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a route can be added as it is nothing else but a condition of permit. 6. The second proviso to sub-sec. (2) of S. 58 reads : "Provided further that, other conditions being equal an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits." In a normal situation, an application for the grant of fresh permanent stage carriage permit for a particular route can also be made when a vacancy occurs on that route on account of the expiry of the life of an existing permit. In view of the aforequoted provision, an existing permit-holder. who has made an application for the renewal of his permit, will be entitled to a preferential claim over others, other conditions being equal But he can have a preferential claim only with respect to a route which was neither to included in his permit and not with respect to the route which he desires to be included by way of a fresh grant. With respect to the route sought to be included for the first time a permit holder will have to compete on equal terms with the other rival competitors and the question of his getting any preference over others will not arise. This will lead to an anomalous situation. This provision, therefore, is also indicative of the legislative intent that at the stage of the proceedings for the renewal of a permit under S. 58 of the Act a fresh route cannot be included in the permit. 7. The case setup by the petitioner is that the scheme which covers the portion of the route between Dinwamau and Dibiyapur itself provides that the petitioner and some other persons named therein alone can be permitted to operate their vehicles on that portion of the route. The submission is that all other persons being excluded the question of fresh competitors being considered for permits for that portion does not arise. This particular feature in this particular case will not and should not detract us from considering the scheme of the Act and the legislative intent. 8. Sub-sec. (8) of S. 57 of the Act in substance provides that an application to vary the condition of a stage carriage permit by including a new route or area shall be treated as if an application for the grant of a new permit The petitioner cannot take advantage of this provision for more than one reason. First, no such request was made by the petitioner before the Transport Authority concerned No such argument was advanced by and on behalf of the petitioner either before the Transport Authority or before the Appellate Tribunal. Even in this Court neither any averment has been made nor any ground to that effect has been taken This was a matter, if at all, in the discretion of the two authorities below, it cannot be said that they either acted without jurisdiction or committed any illegality much less a patent illegality in not adverting to this question. Secondly, the aforementioned provision cannot be invoked with respect to a permit which has no subsisting life in it. If a new route in an existing permit is included, the permit holder thereof cannot operate his vehicle on the newly added route for a period beyond the life of the permit itself. Secondly, the aforementioned provision cannot be invoked with respect to a permit which has no subsisting life in it. If a new route in an existing permit is included, the permit holder thereof cannot operate his vehicle on the newly added route for a period beyond the life of the permit itself. The life of the permit even with respect to the newly added route will be conterminus with the life of the permit itself In this case, as indicated above, the permit was valid till 30th Dec. 1982 and the matter of the renewal of the permit came up for consideration before the Transport Authority on 24th Oct 1983. 9. This petition lacks merit and is dismissed summarily. The interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14th Mar. 1985 is hereby vacated.