M. KATJU, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. dated 27-9-1995 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and for a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 14/15-6-1993 passed by the State Transport Authority. U. P. granting stage carriage permits to the respondents. 2. Heard Sri L. P. Naithani, learned Senior Advocate and Sri. A. D. Saunders for the petitioner, and Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate and Sri A. R. Dubey for the private respondents as well as learned standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The facts of the case are that there is an inter-regional route known as Muzaf-far Nagar-Bhopa Morna-Bijnore route. A sketch map in this connection is An nexure-1 to the writ petition. This route was earlier passing from Morana direct to Bijnore via a pontoon bridge at Rawli Ghat and it was notified under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on 28-9- 1977 published in the U. P. Gazette on 5- 11 -1977 True copy of the said notification is Annexure S. C. A. 3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit of Vish nu Datta Paliwal. A perusal of the said notification shows that existing operations were allowed to continue operating vide clause. 4 of the said notification. The petitioners were existing operators since their permits were issued prior to 5-11-1977 and hence then they continued to operate. Since the major portion of the route lies within Meerut region, it is the RTA Meerut region which is entitled to grant/renew the permits or the route. 4. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the RTA Meerut granted permits on the route by its resolution dated 4-9-1989 and 21-9-1989 which were challenged before this Court in separate writ petitions which were allowed and such resolutions were quashed on the ground that the route is notified and as such the RTA had no jurisdiction to grant permits. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the judgments were chal lenged in the Supreme Court which dis missed the SLP. Appeal on 24-4-1991. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that the State Transport Authority granted permits on 29-9-1989, but the same were set aside by the Tribunal. 5. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the judgments were chal lenged in the Supreme Court which dis missed the SLP. Appeal on 24-4-1991. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that the State Transport Authority granted permits on 29-9-1989, but the same were set aside by the Tribunal. 5. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is alleged that by resolution dated 14/15-6-1993, the State Transport Authority il legally granted 38 permanent stage carriage permits although the route was notified vide Annexure. 2 to the writ peti tion. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is stated that in view of the clear bar of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no such permits could have been legally granted. Aggrieved against the resolution the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No. 1 which was dismissed on 27-9-1995. Hence this peti tion. 6. Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a prelimi nary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because as held by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated, 27-9-1995-the writ petitioners had not right for renewal of their permits and they had to apply for a fresh grant of permit as held by the Supreme Court in Gajraj Singh v. S. T. A. P. , 1996 (8) JT 356 . The petitioners permits were to expire in 1991 and they were renewed in 1991 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. They were again renewed in 1996, and according to Sri K. N. Tripathi, the second renewal of 1996 is illegal. In my opinion, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the renewal of the petitioners permit at this late stage, and that too in collateral proceedings. Since nobody challenged the renewal of the petitioners permits in 1996 it is not open to challenge the same now. In fact till today to revision or appeal or writ petition has been filed against the renewal of the petitioners permit in 1996. In the absence of such direct challenge to the renewal of the petitioners permit, I am not inclined to entertain this objection in col lateral proceedings. Hence the prelimi nary objection of Sri K. N. Tripathi is rejected. 7. In the absence of such direct challenge to the renewal of the petitioners permit, I am not inclined to entertain this objection in col lateral proceedings. Hence the prelimi nary objection of Sri K. N. Tripathi is rejected. 7. Sri L, P. Naithani submitted that the earlier principle of permitting operation with corridor restrictions on notified routes had been invalidated by the Supreme Court in various decisions e. g. M/s. Adarsh Travels Bus Service and another v. State of U. P and others, AIR 1986 SC 319 . On the route in question certain permits had been illegally granted and this was set aside by this Court in Har Pal Singh Beniwal v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and another, 1991 (18) ALR 9, and the SLP against the judgment had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22-4-1991 vide Annexure SCA 5 to the supplementary counter-affidavit of Vish nu Datt Paliwal. 8. It appears that in 1995 a pucca bridge was constructed at Dewal Ghat and hence a notification dated 3-9-94 was is sued under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 modifying Muzaffar Nagar Bijnore route and now the notified route is Bijnore to Mazaffar Nagar via Jansath-Meerapur Dewal instead of the route Bhopaand Morna. Atrue copy of the Gazette notification dated 3-9-94 is Annexure SC A-6 to the supplementary counter-affidavit of Vishnu Datta Paliwal. 9. A perusal of the impugned resolu tion-dated 14/15-6-1993 Annexure-2 to the writ petition shows that the permits have been granted to the respondents on the Muzaffar Nagar-Chhajlet route via Ganga Bijnore Noorpur which is said to bea non-nationalised route. The submission of Sri Nathani is that part of this route is in fact nationalised and hence the impugwd resolution was illegal. On the other hand, the submission of Sri K. N. Tripathi is that the impugned resolution was valid because no part of the aforesaid route on which permits have been granted is nationalised. 10. It appears that at the time of the notification under Section 68-D (3), dated 28-8-1977 (published on 5-11-1977) buses did not travel from Dewal to Bijnore be cause there was no pucca bridge at that time. The aforesaid notification hence had not notified the portion from Dewal to Bijnore, and hence this portion was not part of the notified route. It appears that at the time of the notification under Section 68-D (3), dated 28-8-1977 (published on 5-11-1977) buses did not travel from Dewal to Bijnore be cause there was no pucca bridge at that time. The aforesaid notification hence had not notified the portion from Dewal to Bijnore, and hence this portion was not part of the notified route. It became part of the notified route only when the notifica tion dated 3-9-1994 was published i. e. after the grant of grant of permits by the im pugned resolution dated 14/15-6-1993, and hence at the time when the permits were granted on 14/15-6-1993 the portion from Dewal to Bijnore route was not part of the nationalised route. Hence in my opinion the impugned permits were valid-ly granted. 11. This very controversy was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 6065 of 1996 Smt. Shashi Gael v. State and Ors. , decided on 30-4-1996 and the contention of the petitioner in that case, which is similar to the conten tion of the petitioners. in the present case, was rejected. Against that judgment an SLP was filed in the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 5-8-1996. 12. In Manzoor Ahmad v. State, 1993 (2) ALR 329, also a similar conten tion has been negatived by a learned Single Judge of this Court, It has been observed in paragraph 3 of the said judgment that it is undisputed that the snip from Dewal to Bijnore was not part of the routewhich was notified on 5-11- 1997. Similarly in para graph 15 of the said judgment it was ob served that the aforesaid patch from Dewal to Bijnore was noi the matter of consideration when the scheme was notified in 1977, and the corporation and not even objected against the grant of per mits to petitioners and others on this non- notified portion. Against this judgment in Manzoor Ahmads case (supra) also an SLP was filed in the Supreme Court which was rejected on 10-5-1993. 13. No doubt the portion from Dewal to Bijnore was notified from 3-9-1994 but the impugned permits were granted much before that date. The point being pressed in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Smt. Shashi Gaels case and Manzoor Ahmads case (supra) against which SLPs have been rejected by the Supreme Court. 13. No doubt the portion from Dewal to Bijnore was notified from 3-9-1994 but the impugned permits were granted much before that date. The point being pressed in this writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Smt. Shashi Gaels case and Manzoor Ahmads case (supra) against which SLPs have been rejected by the Supreme Court. Hence this point can not be agitated again. The decision inhar-pal Singh Beniwal case (supra) is distin guishable because it relates to the Muzaf-farnagar-Bhopa- Morna-Berha Sadat-Dewal Bijnore route, most of which (ex cept the portion from Dewal to Bijnore) was part of the original route notified on 5-11-77. The petitioners route, on the other hand is Muzaffarnagar-Jansath-Meerapur-Dewal- Bijnore-Chajlet route, no part of which was notified up to 3-9- 94, and only the portion from Dewal to Bij nore was notified from 3-9- 94, that is, after the issuance of the impugned permits. 14. Thus there is no force in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed. .