M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the learned advocates. This is one more case where the learned Advocate who represents the petitioner-corporation states that despite the objection having been raised by the corporation's representative that the permission has been renewed. He submits that the objection raised was an insurmountable one in so far as it was pointed out to the authority that the route is a notified route and that therefore, this would be a case of overlapping and consequently no permit could be issued to the respondents. There is a reference in the order to such an objection having been raised and there is no satisfactory ground on which the authority has got over this objection. The respondent's learned Advocate states that he is disputing the correctness of this statement and he submits that even before this court, it has not been indicated as to how much and which part of the route is overlapping, vsecondly, he submits that his client has been operating the service since as early as 1966 and that the permit has been regularly renewed several times and he submits that if there was any valid objection that the authorities would not have renewed the permits. I refrain from going into these factual aspects of the matter because in situations where there is a serious dispute of this type, it is customary for the party to do a route survey and set the matter at rest on the basis of on the spot inspection, ( 2 ) A more substantial objection raised by the petitioner' slearned Advocate is that this is an old permit and even assuming the same was renewed, that once the new act has come into operation a fresh permit will have to be applied for as the old permit has exhausted its existence. This being the position, the second respondent is granted three months time to make an application for a fresh permit and it shall be open to the applicant to rely on all such materials as he is entitled to. The copy of the application shall be furnished to the k. s. r. t. c. and the k. s. r. t. c. shall be heard before a fresh permit is granted. The copy of the application shall be furnished to the k. s. r. t. c. and the k. s. r. t. c. shall be heard before a fresh permit is granted. It is made clear that if the k. s. r. t. c. desires to raise any objections, that this shall be in writing, that they shall be specific and that they shall be substantiated by the officer with substantive evidence. If this procedure is not followed, it shall be open to the authority to disregard the objection and once this is done, it is made clear to the k. s. r. t. c. that no further opportunity will be available to the corporation to put forward any fresh objections nor will the matter be thereafter reconsidered on this ground. It is necessary to issue this direction in view of the fact that in a large number of cases, haphazard and vague objections are raised, the requisitive supportive material is not produced and remands are asked for. There will have to be a final stop to this procedure. ( 3 ) THE petition succeeds to this extent. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. It is however clarified that the second respondent shall be permitted to continue operating for a period of six months from today within which time, the second respondent's application for fresh permit shall either be disposed of or, the authority shall be empowered to pass interim orders. With these directions, the petition to stand disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .