( 1 ) THE order dated 20/03/1991 passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the application made by the petitioner to authorise him to operate his stage carriage on Hinduwari-Robertsganj route is being impugned in the present writ petition. ( 2 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Competent Authority. Shri S. K. Sharma has put in appearance on behalf of that Authority and he has been heard. ( 3 ) THE father of the petitioner held a stage carriage permit No. 318 on Ahraura-Hinduwari-Robertsganj- Punnuganj route. A notification under Section 68d (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was issued sometimes in 1961 declaring Varanasi-Pipri viz. Mirzapur route as a notified one. A portion between Hinduwari and Robertsganj formed part of the said route and, therefore, that portion of the route namely Hinduwari and Robertsganj was deleted from the permit of the petitioners father. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioners father held a stage carriage permit No. 318 on Ahraurahinduwari-Robertsganj Punnuganj route. It appears that upon the demise of the petitioners father the said permit was transferred to the petitioner under Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the view taken by the Competent Authority is that since the petitioner himself did not hold the permit on the portion of the route namely, Hinduwari-Robertsganj on the date when the notification under Section 68d (3) was issued he will not be considered to be a "permit holder" within the meaning of Section 5 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 consequently he cannot get any advantage of that provision. ( 5 ) IN our opinion the Competent Authority has taken a very stringent view of the provisions of Section 5. In the case of Hindustan Transport Co. v. State of U. P. , AIR 1984 SC 953 the Supreme Court has taken the view that only those persons are entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the said Act who are operating their vehicles on the notified route on the date of notification under Section 68d (3 ). The petitioner having stepped into the shoes of his father will be deemed to be a permit holder within the meaning of Section 5 of the said Act. The petitioner having stepped into the shoes of his father will be deemed to be a permit holder within the meaning of Section 5 of the said Act. The ultimate object of the scheme, in the light of the policy underlying the Motor Vehicles Act and the U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, is that the status quo as obtaining on the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 68-D (3) should be maintained and there should be no addition of any stage carriage vehicle on any notified route. Merely because the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of his father there will be no addition of a stage carriage on the portion of route between Hinduwari and Robertsganj. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Competent Authority patently erred in rejecting the application made by the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/03/1991 passed by the Competent Authority is quashed. The Competent Authority shall decide the application of the petitioner afresh on merits and in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner before it. ( 7 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .