JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 and learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that both the writ petitions be finally decided. The writ petition No. 46271 of 2007 has been connected with writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 vide order dated 24.9.2007 passed in writ petition No. 46271 of 2007. 2. Heard Sri A.D. Saunders learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri S.N. Jaiswal has appeared for the respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007. Sri M.P. Dubey has accepted notice for respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 46271 of 2007. These two writ petitions have been filed by the two petitioners whose grant of permit of a known route as “Meerut-Parikashat Garh-Asifabad-Lalyana and allied routes” which was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut on 2.9.2004 has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on a revision filed by the respondent No. 3 an existing operators of the route. By these writ petitions petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21.8.2007 passed in Revision No. 17 of 2005, Kamal Kant Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, and the revision No. 13 of 2007, Vikrant Chaudhary v. Regional Transport Authority. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents not to interfere in the operation of the petitioners vehicles on the route “Meerut- Parikashat Garh-Asifabad-Lalyana and allied routes”. 3. It is sufficient to note the brief facts of the case in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 which is sufficient for deciding both the writ petitions. The petitioners made an application for grant of permit in respect of stage carriage to the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut in its meeting held on 16.6.2004 rejected all the applications on the ground that the existing operators were not getting minimum run of 220 Km. per day. Individual application for grant of permit on the route was again made on 26th of July, 2004 by the petitioners. The route is non-notified route. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 2.9.2004 considered various applications given in regard to different routes of the region. per day. Individual application for grant of permit on the route was again made on 26th of July, 2004 by the petitioners. The route is non-notified route. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 2.9.2004 considered various applications given in regard to different routes of the region. The applications of the petitioners were also considered at item No. 7. After hearing the Counsel who appeared for existing operators as well as the petitioners, the Regional Transport Authority approved the grant of permit, in pursuance of the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 2.9.2004 permits were issued to the petitioners. 4. A revision No. 17 of 2005 was filed by Kamal Kant Gupta against the decision dated 2.9.2004 granting permit to the petitioners; another revision No. 13 of 2007 was filed by Vikrant Chaudhary against the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut by which regular stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner was issued. The revision filed by Vikrant Chaudhary was against the order dated 15.9.2006 by which decision was given to issue permit to the petitioners. 5. Sri A. D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, contended that the Tribunal committed error in allowing the revision by setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 2.9.2004 granting permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel contends that in view of the liberal policy of grant of stage carriage permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as interpreted by the apex Court in AIR 1992 SC 443 , Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc., the existing operators had no right to object the grant of permit to the petitioners and all the reasons given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in allowing the revision are misconceived. Learned Counsel submits that the Regional Transport Authority has no authority or jurisdiction to limit the number of permits to be granted nor the fact that the existing operators were not getting run of 220 Kms. per day was relevant for denial of permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel submits that the Regional Transport Authority has no authority or jurisdiction to limit the number of permits to be granted nor the fact that the existing operators were not getting run of 220 Kms. per day was relevant for denial of permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Ghaziabad, 2003 (2) AWC 1106 on intended operators can get permit on depositing the requisite fee irrespective of number of operators already in field. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1991 A.W.C. 850, Upendra Bahadur Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. 6. Sri S. N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 Kamal Kant Gupta refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision. Learned Counsel submits that the relevant consideration for grant of permit were not considered by the Regional Transport Authority while granting permit to the petitioners. He further contended that the applications of the petitioners were rejected on 16.6.2004 and there was no occasion to grant permit soon thereafter. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that permit cannot be granted in the manner so as to route could be converted into a racing ground. The judgment of the Division Bench in, Shamim Haider and another v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and another, AIR 1995 All 385 , as well as the judgment of Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. (supra) and the judgment of the apex Court in Thirumalai Transport Service v. P. Samiappa Gounder, AIR 1997 SC 1029 have been relied by the learned Counsel for the respondent. 7. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 8. A copy of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut dated 2.9.2004 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition No. 46469 of 2007. In the resolution the Regional Transport Authority considered various applications for grant of permit including the applications of the petitioner. The Regional Transport Authority in his order specifically noted that in the earlier meeting dated 16.6.2004 applications were rejected on the ground that the existing operators are not getting per day operation of 220 Kms. In the resolution the Regional Transport Authority considered various applications for grant of permit including the applications of the petitioner. The Regional Transport Authority in his order specifically noted that in the earlier meeting dated 16.6.2004 applications were rejected on the ground that the existing operators are not getting per day operation of 220 Kms. The Regional Transport Authority referred to letter of the Deputy Transport Commissioner referring to the Government order dated 20.9.2000 stating that the above ground could not be a ground for rejection. It was further noted that the Government order dated 20.9.2000 was not in the notice of the Secretary hence the same was not placed for consideration in the meeting dated 16.6.2004. The Regional Transport Authority also took into consideration the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur and others, AIR 1992 All 211 and Mukesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Ghaziabad, 2003 (2) AWC 1106 . 9. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by the impugned judgment has allowed the revision filed by the existing operators mainly on following grounds : 1. The resolution dated 2.9.2004 of the Regional Transport Authority is not an order of grant but mere proposal/opinion for grant of permit. 2. The grant of permit to the petitioners is against the order dated 8.6.1999 of the High Court passed in writ petition No. 2458 of 1999. The existing operators are not getting required run per day. 3. The Regional Transport Authority has not considered the relevant factors while considering the grant of permit to the petitioners. 4. The applications for grant of permit was already rejected on 16.6.2004 on the basis of joint survey report of the district authority and Transport Officer four months ago and there was no change on the route, the grant of permit was erroneous. 5. The provisions of U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 specially the provisions of Rule 62 have not been followed. 10. The first ground taken by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is that the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority is not an order for grant of permit but only a proposal/opinion. A copy of the resolution dated 2.9.2004 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The resolution is a detailed resolution which runs into five typed pages. Resolution considered the several applications for grant of permit including the applications of the petitioners. A copy of the resolution dated 2.9.2004 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The resolution is a detailed resolution which runs into five typed pages. Resolution considered the several applications for grant of permit including the applications of the petitioners. The resolution considered the submissions of the parties on the entitlement for the grant of permit to the petitioners. The Regional Transport Authority deliberated the matter and took the view that in view of the subsequent Government order dated 20.9.2000 the applications cannot be rejected on the ground that the existing operators are not getting particular run per day. The resolution records the decision of Regional Transport Authority that the permit be approved with conditions. A careful reading of the resolution indicates that the Regional Transport Authority came to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for grant of permit. The order if considered in substance is a decision of the Regional Transport Authority to approve the grant of permit. The mere fact that the Regional Transport Authority used the word “Mat” (opinion) while expressing its view it cannot be said that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority was only an opinion/proposal. The decision of the Regional Transport Authority was decision to grant permit under Section 71. Section 72 empower the Regional Transport Authority to grant stage carriage permit on an application made under Section 71. There is no particular format for the decision to grant a permit. The decision for grant of permit has to be taken by the Regional Transport Authority and actually ministerial act of issuing permit is taken thereafter. Thus the view of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the Regional Transport Authority has not decided to grant permit but rather has given only opinion, cannot be accepted. The Regional Transport Authority being competent authority to grant permit has rightly decided to grant permit and it cannot be said that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority was only an opinion/ proposal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has committed error in taking the view that the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority is not a decision to grant permit but only a proposal/opinion. 11. The next ground taken by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is that the grant of permit to the petitioners is against the order of the High Court dated 8.6.1999 passed in writ petition No. 2458 of 1999. 11. The next ground taken by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is that the grant of permit to the petitioners is against the order of the High Court dated 8.6.1999 passed in writ petition No. 2458 of 1999. The order of the High Court dated 8.6.1999 has been quoted in paragraph 3 of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which is to the following effect : “Writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider and grant the permit on the route of the petitioner keeping in view the Government order dated 12.8.1997 which provides that the number of permits shall be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority in such a way that a vehicle of individual operator must get a minimum run of 220 Kms. per day." 12. The above order indicates that this Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider and grant permit on the route keeping in view the Government order dated 12.8.1997. After noticing the said order of the High Court, in paragraph 4 the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has referred to the meeting dated 2.5.2000/6.6.2000. As stated in paragraph 4 of the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the direction of the High Court dated 8.6.1999 was taken into consideration in the meeting dated 2.5.2000/ 6.6.2000. From the order of the Regional Transport Authority it is clear that after the Government order dated 12.8.1997 a subsequent Government order was issued on 20.9.2000 which has been relied by the Regional Transport Authority for grant of permit to the petitioner. The Government order dated 12.8.1987 on the basis of which direction was issued by this Court on 8.9.1999 cannot be treated to be a direction for all subsequent meetings, irrespective of the fact that the subsequent Government orders were issued touching the issue. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners were party in the writ petition No. 2458 of 1999. The Regional Transport Authority having taking into consideration the subsequent Government order also for deciding the question for grant of permit in its meeting dated 2.9.2004, the consideration made by the Regional Transport Authority is nowhere breach of direction of this Court. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration the subsequent Government order referred to by the Regional Transport Authority in its decision i.e. the Government order dated 20.9.2000. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has not taken into consideration the subsequent Government order referred to by the Regional Transport Authority in its decision i.e. the Government order dated 20.9.2000. Thus, the view of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the grant of permit is in breach of direction of this Court dated 8.6.1999 passed in writ petition No. 2458 of 1999 cannot be accepted. 13. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has next held that the Regional Transport Authority has not considered the relevant facts for grant of permit. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shamim Haider and another v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and another (supra) in this context. Before proceeding to consider the reasonings given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it is relevant to note the object of 1988 Act and the various pronouncement of the apex Court and this Court in this respect. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, grant of permit and the policy under the 1988 Act came into consideration before the apex Court in Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. (supra). The apex Court compared the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and noticed the complete change in the legislative policy in 1988 Act. The apex Court held that the right of existing operators to file objections and the provisions to impose limits on the number of permits have been taken away in the new Act. Following was laid down in paragraphs 6 and 7 : Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. (supra). “6. The Parliament in its wisdom has completely effaced the above features. The scheme envisaged under Sections 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by the Act. The right of existing-operators to file objections and the provision to impose limit on ‘the number of permits have been taken away. There is no similar provision to that of Section 47 and Section 57 under the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. There is no similar provision to that of Section 47 and Section 57 under the Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing in the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. Sections 71 (1) of the Act provides that while consideration an application for a stage carriage permit the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the objects of the Act. Section 80(2), which is the harbinger of the Liberalisation, provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. There is no provision under the Act like that of Section 47(3) of the Act and as such no limit for the grant of permits can be fixed under the Act. There is, however, no provision under Section 71 (3)(a) of the Act under which a limit can be fixed for the grant of permits in respect of the routes which are within a town having population of more than five lakhs. 7. The petitioners are existing stage carriage operators on different routes. They hold permits granted by the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. Mithlesh Garg petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1345/1989 has stated that he holds a stage carriage permit and plies his vehicles on the Meerut-Parikshitgarh-Hasifabad-Laliana and allied routes under the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. According to him prior to the enforcement of the Act, 23 permit-holders were operating on the said route but thereafter under Section 80 of the Act the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut has issued 272 more permits in respect of the same route. Similar facts have been stated in the other writ petitions. As mentioned above, the petitioners are permit holders and are existing operators. They are plying their vehicles on the routes assigned to them under the permits. They are in the full enjoyment of their fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. There is no threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority to the enjoyment of their right to carry on the occupation of transport operators. There is no complaint of infringement of any of their statutory rights. Their only effort is to stop the new operators from coming in the field as competitors. We see no justification it he petitioners’ stand. There is no complaint of infringement of any of their statutory rights. Their only effort is to stop the new operators from coming in the field as competitors. We see no justification it he petitioners’ stand. More operators mean healthy-competition and efficient transport system. Over crowded buses, passengers standing in the asile, clinging to the bus-doors and even sitting on the roof-tops are some of the common sights in this country. More often one finds a bus which has noisy engine, old upholstery, uncomfortable seats and continuous emission of black-smoke from the exhaust pipe. It is, therefore, necessary that there should be plenty of operators on every route to provide ample choice to the commuter-public to board the vehicle of their choice and patronise the operator who is providing the best service. Even otherwise the liberal policy is likely to help in the elimination of corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits. Restricted licensing under the old Act led to the concentration of business in the hands of few persons thereby giving rise to a kind of monopoly, adversely affecting the public interest. The apprehensions of the petitioners, that too many operators on a route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession is without any basis. The transport business is bound to be ironed out ultimately by the rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a vehicle being as it is the business requires huge investment. The intending operators are likely to be conscious of economics underlying the profession. Only such number of vehicles would finally remain in operation on a particular route as are economically viable. In any case the transport system in a State is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal. The petitioners who are already in the business want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and as such eliminate the healthy competition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade. The policy to grant permits liberally under the Act is directed towards the said goal. The petitioners who are already in the business want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and as such eliminate the healthy competition which is necessary to bring efficiency in the trade. This Court in Jashbhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, (1976) 3 SCR 58 : ( AIR 1976 SC 578 ) posed the following questions for its determination (para 1): “Whether the proprietor of a cinema theatre holding a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films, is entitled to invoke the certiorari jurisdiction ex debito justitiae to get a ‘ No-objection Certificate’, granted under Rule 6 of the Bombay Cinema Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules ) by the District Magistrate in favour of a rival in the trade, brought up and quashed on the ground that it suffers from a defect of jurisdiction, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave.” 14. The Division Bench judgment in Upendra Bahadur Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) again considered the legislative policy of the State under the 1998 Act following was laid down in paragraph 6 : “6. Supreme Court in the case of Vijai Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 2072 , has laid down that if the two Legislations relate to the same subject matter and the provisions of Central Act and the State Act in the concurrent list are fully inconsistent and are absolutely irreconcilable, the Central Act will prevail and the State Act will become void by virtue of the provisions of Art. 254 of the Constitution of India. Section 43-A of the U.P. Act covers the same field, which is dealt with by the new Act, namely, grant of permits, procedure to be followed by the transport authorities and the matter connected therewith. As mentioned before under Section 43-A permit cannot be granted liberally, whereas under the new Act provisions have been made for grant and renewal of permits on liberal basis without any limit. There is no provisions in the new Act similar or analogous to Section 43-A. Only provision in the new Act under which the State Government has been given power to issue direction is Section 67, which is analogous to Section 43 of the old Act. There is no provisions in the new Act similar or analogous to Section 43-A. Only provision in the new Act under which the State Government has been given power to issue direction is Section 67, which is analogous to Section 43 of the old Act. But under this Section direction can be issued for : (1) fixation of fares and freights, (ii) prohibition or restriction of conveying long distance goods traffic and (iii) any other matter for giving effect to any agreement entered into with the Central Government or any other State Government or Government of any other country, relating to the regulation of motor transport generally and in particular to its coordination with other means of transport and the conveying of long distance goods traffic. This Section does not authorise the Government to issue direction of the nature specified by Section 43-A of the old Act. From every point of view it is obvious that Section 43-A lays down a different policy and is absolutely inconsistent and irreconcilable with the new Act and one cannot be obeyed without disobeying the others. As such, Section 43-A has become void, inoperative and stands repealed by virtue of Art. 254 of the Constitution of India. In view of our aforesaid finding, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether this provision stands repealed by Section 217 of new Act.” 15. The judgment on which much reliance has been placed by the petitioner’s Counsel is Mukesh Kumar’s case (supra). This Court following the judgment of Apex Court in Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. (supra) as well as the judgment of Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur and others (supra) laid down following in paragraphs 7 and 8 : “7. As Section 43-A has become void and stands repealed, the impugned Notification issued thereunder cannot survive. That apart, even this Notification is also inconsistent with the provisions of new Act specially Section 81 of the new Act. 8. As we are agreeing with the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is not necessary to go into the second question.” 16. That apart, even this Notification is also inconsistent with the provisions of new Act specially Section 81 of the new Act. 8. As we are agreeing with the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, it is not necessary to go into the second question.” 16. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench in Upendra Bahadur Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (supra) noticed the direction which can be issued by the State in 1988 Act with regard to grant of permit. Another relevant judgment to be considered is the judgment in Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur and others (supra). In Shamim Haider and another v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and another (supra) on which much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondent. In the said case the applications of the petitioners for grant of permit for stage carriage were granted but subsequently the strength of the route was fixed as 35 Kms and only 35 permits were issued on the basis of "first came first serve”. In view of above the petitioners were not issued permit then they filed the writ petition. The Division Bench also noticed certain directions issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 13 of the judgment. In paragraph 14 the Division Bench took the view that the directions 3, 4, 5 and 6 were unsustainable. The limiting of number of permits to 35 was not sustained and the impugned order in the said writ petition limiting permits were quashed. Following was laid down in paragraphs 13 and 14 : “13. The petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit annexing there with a copy of the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U.P. in the case of Mohammad Ahmad v. Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, being Revision No. 46 of 1992 along with that of Revision No. 73 of 1992, both of which were disposed of by a common judgment. In the said case the State Transport Appellate Tribunal remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, with the following directions : “(1) That the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun shall get a survey of the route in question carried out. (2) That the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun shall determine the conditions of the roads having due regard to the safety standards and pollution control measures. (2) That the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun shall determine the conditions of the roads having due regard to the safety standards and pollution control measures. (3) That the Transport Authority, Dehradun shall work out the economics of the road transport service on the routes in question. (4) That the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun shall work draw a time table for plying the buses on the route in question at such intervals as the requirement of the flow of traffic may warrant. The said time table shall be exhibited on the notice board on the office of its Secretary so that various applications may incorporate the same in their applications. (5) That the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, shall determine the requirement of additional buses and permits over the route in question after determining the frequency with which the buses shall be plied and the hours during which they shall be plied. (6) That the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun, shall investigate into the social and economic status of the various applicants and after affording a fresh opportunity of being heard to the various applicants, shall proceed to grant such number of permits and to such persons as it may deem proper having due regard to the objects of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.” 14. In our opinion the direction No. (6) cannot be the factor for consideration while granting permits. The same, in our view, would effect the principle of equality in the eye of law. Social and economic status does not make a man different from any other person in the matter of grant of permits. Similarly, since the policy of grant of permit has been liberalised to attract open market from the question of economics in direction No. (3) cannot be a factor to be taken into account. At the same time we also hold that in the garb of direction Nos. (4) and (5) the Regional Transport, has no authority to limit the number of permits on the particular route. Though, however, the Regional Transport Authority, may refuse to grant permit on the said route on any ground, which are factors for consideration while granting permits.” 17. From the pronouncement made by the apex Court in Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. Though, however, the Regional Transport Authority, may refuse to grant permit on the said route on any ground, which are factors for consideration while granting permits.” 17. From the pronouncement made by the apex Court in Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. (supra) and other cases of this Court as noted above, it is clear that the legislative policy which is apparent from the provisions of 1988 Act is to grant the permits to the applicants who fulfil the conditions for grant of permit without there being any limit on the number of permits in a particular route. The object to grant many permits is for healthy competition in the transport business and to make available the public better and efficient transport service which can be achieved only when healthy and free competition is allowed amongst the permit holders. The existing operators cannot object the grant unless the grant is in violation of some statutory provisions or in teeth of any binding direction. In the present case, it cannot be said that the Regional Transport Authority has not considered the relevant factors while issuing permit to the petitioners. The Regional Transport Authority has subsequently noticed the judgments in Mukesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Ghaziabad (supra) and Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, Gorakhpur and others (supra) which upheld the liberal policy in grant of permit to the applicants. 18. The next ground taken by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is that the applications have already been rejected on 16th June, 2004. There was no new ground to grant permit on 2.9.2004. This aspect of the matter has been very clearly dealt by the Regional Transport Authority in its resolution dated 16.6.2004, the Regional Transport Authority has stated that the Government order dated 20.9.2000 was not in the notice of the Secretary and could not be brought into the notice of the Regional Transport Authority when the meeting was held on 16.6.2004. The Regional Transport Authority in its resolution stated that the applications were rejected on the ground that the existing operators are not getting 220 Kms. run per day. The Regional Transport Authority has noticed the subsequent Government order hence the resolution for grant of permit dated 2.9.2004 was clearly explained in the resolution itself which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has failed to notice. 19. run per day. The Regional Transport Authority has noticed the subsequent Government order hence the resolution for grant of permit dated 2.9.2004 was clearly explained in the resolution itself which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has failed to notice. 19. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has observed that the provisions of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 has not been followed. There is no reference of any other rules except rule 62. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the vehicle was very much there with the petitioner which has been mentioned in the permit and there is no violation of Rule 62. 20. The second writ petition being writ petition No. 46271 of 2007 has challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21st of August, 2007. In pursuance of the grant of permit dated 2.9.2004 the application was made for issue of the permit. In the order the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it has been noticed that the grant of permit dated 2.9.2004 has already been challenged in the revision No. 17 of 2005. The grant having been held valid in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners having running their vehicles under the permit, no error can be found in the issuance of the permit to the petitioners. The order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21.8.2007 passed in revision No. 13 of 2007 can also not be sustained. 21. In view of forgoing discussions both the writ petitions are allowed and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21st of August, 2007 is set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs.