JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 23.3.1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.927 and 928 of 1993 whereby while dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-appellants, the learned single Judge has held that the impugned order (Annexure-4) dated 2.2.1993 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the STAT') cancelling the two non-temporary stage carriage permits granted in favour of the petitioner-appellants and granting them in favour of the respondent RSRTC deserves to be sustained. 2. The facts necessary to be noticed, for the disposal of these appeals briefly stated are: that to fill up the four vacancies of non-temporary stage carriage permits on the inter-statal route i.e. Ganganagar to Firozpur, applications were invited by the learned Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner(hereinafter to be referred as 'the RTA') and after considering all the applications, the learned RTA granted four non-temporary stage carriage permits in favour of respondent RSRTC vide order dated 15.4.1981 and the remaining applications were rejected. 3. Against this order dated 15.4.1981 passed by the learned RTA granting all the four non-temporary stage carriage permits in favour of respondent RSRTC, the petitioner-appellant filed four appeals bearing No. 176/81,177/81,178/81 and 179/81 before the learned STAT and those appeals came to be decided by the learned STAT vide its order dated 19.12.1985, whereby it has quashed the order dated 15.4.1981 passed by the learned RTA and remanded the case back for fresh consideration on merits. After the case was remanded back to the learned RTA, the learned RTA vide his order dated 9.2.1987 granted two non-temporary stage carriage permits in favour of respondent RSRTC and two non-temporary stage carriage permits in favour of petitioner-appellant. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 9.2.1987 passed by the learned RTA, two appeals were preferred by the respondent RSRTC and 2 appeals were filed by the petitioner-appellant. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 9.2.1987 passed by the learned RTA, two appeals were preferred by the respondent RSRTC and 2 appeals were filed by the petitioner-appellant. All the four appeals were heard together by the learned STAT and vide its order Annexure-4 dated 2.2.1993, the learned STAT, after considering the comparative merit and demerit of the petitioner- appellant and respondent RSRTC, allowed the two appeals filed by the respondent Corporation and set aside the order of the RTA granting two non-temporary stage carriage permits in favour of appellants Private operators before us and dismissed the two appeals filed on behalf of the petitioner-appellant and sustained the grant of two non-temporary stage carriage permits in favour of the RSRTC by the RTA vide order dated 9.2.1987. Thus, the STAT held that all the four non-temporary stage carriage permits be granted to the respondent RSRTC. 4. Aggrieved against the order Annexure-4 dated 2.2.1993, the petitioner-appellant filed two writ petitions bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 927 and 928 of 1993 before this Court, which came to be decided as aforesaid and hence these two appeals. 5. We have heard Mr.B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant and Mr.R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel for the respondent RSRTC and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 6. Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent RSRTC raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner-appellant has no locus standi to prefer these appeals and, therefore, these appeals may be dismissed. He has submitted that 2 non-temporary stage carriage permits were granted in favour of the petitioner-appellant vide order dated 9.2.1987 passed by the learned RTA for a period of five years and that period of five years has expired and to the best knowledge of the respondent RSRTC, no application for renewal of those two permits has been filed by the petitioner-appellant. It may be stated here that alongwith the writ petition, neither the original permits nor the renewed permits have been filed by the parties before this Court. According to Mr. Munshi, when the term of permits has already been expired, the petitioner-appellant has no locus standi to file these appeals. 7. It has been contended by Mr. It may be stated here that alongwith the writ petition, neither the original permits nor the renewed permits have been filed by the parties before this Court. According to Mr. Munshi, when the term of permits has already been expired, the petitioner-appellant has no locus standi to file these appeals. 7. It has been contended by Mr. Munshi that those two permits which were granted to the petitioner-appellant under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could not have been renewed and only fresh applications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits could have been filed. In this respect, our attention has been drawn to the provisions of Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 217(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that notwithstanding the repeal by sub-section (1) of the repealed enactments, any certificate of fitness or registration or licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to bave effect after such commencement under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act had not been passed. Thus, the permits which were granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could have continued only for the term for which they were granted. There does not exist any provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding renewal of permits granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In such cases, only fresh applications for grant of permits are required to be filed under section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.In support of his contention, Mr. Munshi has placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Quilon Distt. Motor Transport Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd. v. R.T.A. & Others, AIR 1995 SC 82 , wherein it has been held that the operation of the permit issued under Section 58, of the repealed Act, IV of 1939 is a terminus with the expiry of the period of the grant and the operation of the Act IV of 1939 ceases to have effect from that date. Any right to run the permit, therefore, must be under the permit granted under the Act as per its provisions. Harmonious construction of the relevant provisions would lead to the above conclusion lest any other construction would fly in the face of the express provisions of the Act. Any right to run the permit, therefore, must be under the permit granted under the Act as per its provisions. Harmonious construction of the relevant provisions would lead to the above conclusion lest any other construction would fly in the face of the express provisions of the Act. By necessary implication of Section 217(2)(b), the right to renewal under the Act IV of 1933 stands repealed with the expiry of the period. of grant of the permit made under the repealed Act. Where the application was not made for fresh grant under the Act, the rejection of the renewal application under Act IV of 1939 or under the Act is perfectly legal. 8. On the other hand, if has been argued by Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant that in this case, the permits which were granted in favour of the petitioner-appellant under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 have already been renewed by the Regional Transport Authority and nave been countersigned by the concerned Regional Transport Authority of the State of Punjab and, therefore, the petitioner-appellant has locus standi to file these appeals. 9. The contention of Mr. Munshi is that this renewal of permits is against the law and, therefore, no notice of it should be taken. He has submitted that had the petitioner applied for grant of fresh permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after the repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, he could have locus standi to file the present appeals. The permits which were granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would be valid only for the period for which they were granted. He has submitted that these permits were granted on 9.2.1987 for a period of five years and that term has expired on 8.2.1992. According to him, renewal of these permits which were granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a nullity and when renewal of these permits has to be ignored, the petitioner- appellant has no locus standi to file these appeals.-This preliminary objection which has been raised by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is totally legal and is based on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Quilon Distt. Motor Transport Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd.'s case (supra) and deserves to be sustained. 10. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is totally legal and is based on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Secretary, Quilon Distt. Motor Transport Workers' Co-operative Society Ltd.'s case (supra) and deserves to be sustained. 10. Thus, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, we are firmly of the view that the petitioner-appellant has no Incas standi to file these appeals. 11. We may state here that even on merits, not only the learned single Judge but also the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal has dealt in detail about the comparative merits of the petitioner-appellant and the respondent RSRTC. After referring and quoting the ratio that has been laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sher Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 200 and further discussing the judgment of the learned STAT about the comparative merits of the petitioner-appellant and the respondent RSRTC, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that taking into consideration the factors like fleet of vehicles, workshop facilities, sector experience and transport experience on the route, the respondent RSRTC will be better suited to run on all the four permits on this inter-statal route. The learned single Judge has also referred to the provisions of Section 47(1-H) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which gives preference to RSRTC in grant of permits. Detailed reasons have been recorded by the learned single Judge as to how the impugned judgment of the learned STAT deserves to be sustained. In arriving at these conclusions, the affidavit filed by one R.K.S. Jodha on behalf of the respondent RSRTC has weighed heavily with the learned single Judge that at present 20 buses were lying ready with the RSRTC to be plied on this route. Thus, comparative merits of the petitioner-appellant and the respondent RSRTC have been assessed by the learned STAT as also by the learned single Judge and thereafter, the learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the respondent RSRTC will be better suited to run on all the four permits on this inter-statal route. In this view of the matter, we hold that even on merits, the judgment of the learned single Judge deserves to be sustained. 12. In the result, we find no force in these appeals and, therefore, they are dismissed without any order as to costs.Special appeal rejected. *******