JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. - This order shall dispose of LPA No.192 of 2008 filed by respondent No.3 in the writ petition No.11529 of 2001 and LPA No.191 of 2008 filed by the writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. Since both the appeals arises out of the same judgment arising out of one writ petition, therefore, the same are being disposed of together. 2. In December 1992, applications were invited for grant of regular stage carriage permits with return trips under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the scheme notified by Government of Punjab vide notification dated 9-8-1990. Originally, the applications were invited for one permit for Moga-Abohar via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout route measuring 147 Kms. Subsequently, the same was amended on 1-1-1993 so as to invite applications for two permits, out of which one permit was reserved for the State Undertaking. 3. 165 applications were received in pursuance of such notice published in the Motor Transport Gazette Weekly dated 15-12-1992. The State Transport Commissioner after considering the applications, found M/s. New Punjab Transport Company (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Permit Holder’) the appellant in LPA No.192 of 2008 to be deserving applicant for the grant of stage carriage permit vide order dated 13-9-1995. The said order was set aside in appeal by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 29-5-1997. It was found that the same was granted to Permit Holder without discussing the merits and demerits of the applicants. After the aforesaid order, the State Transport Commissioner passed an order on 9-3-1999 granting permit to Permit Holder finding that it has deposited requisite application fee in two parts within prescribed time. It was found that the Company can have 10 permits whereas individuals can have 5 permits. It was also found that Company has no liability of Government taxes as per certificate produced at the time of hearing of the case. Three partners of the Company have enormous experience of transport line. In respect of M/s. Baba Bus Service (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Objector’), it found that the said applicant had no permit and vehicle. The paramount consideration is to provide immediate bus service to the traveling public. In the event of grant of permit to the said applicant, it will not be able to provide immediate bus service. Therefore, the claim was rejected. The paramount consideration is to provide immediate bus service to the traveling public. In the event of grant of permit to the said applicant, it will not be able to provide immediate bus service. Therefore, the claim was rejected. The said order was challenged before State Transport Appellate Tribunal by Objector. The appeal was dismissed on 28-5-2001. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Objector filed the writ petition mentioned above before this Court which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge on 22-4-2008, the order impugned in the present appeals. The learned Single Judge has found that line of travel in the present case is between Moga-Abohar via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout. However, the route applied by Permit Holder is Abohar to Moga via Muktsar. These two lines of travel route are quite different. The distance may be different as Permit Holder has applied for a direct route which is separate trip and cannot be said to be route for which the applications were invited. Such aspect was not taken into consideration by the authorities. It was found that the application of Permit Holder cannot be treated as an application for permit on the Moga-Abohar route via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout. It was also found that the finding of the State Transport Commissioner that Permit Holder is not in default of arrears of tax is incorrect. Reliance was placed upon demand notice dated 12-07-2001 issued by the office of Taxation Officer, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan) in respect of arrears of tax amounting to Rs.1,93,746/-for the period 1-1-1994 to 31-07-2001 towards bus No.RNK-3437. It was also found that the application of the Permit Holder was defective as it had not filed an affidavit disclosing holding of one permit of mini bus. Thus, the Permit Holder has failed to furnish complete and full information. 5. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that Abohar to Moga via Muktsar is a separate route than Moga-Abohar via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout is not sustainable. Even Mr. Baldev Kapoor, learned counsel for the Objector could not dispute that Moga-Abohar via Muktsar is not a distinct and separate route from Moga-Abohar via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout. Even Mr. Baldev Kapoor, learned counsel for the Objector could not dispute that Moga-Abohar via Muktsar is not a distinct and separate route from Moga-Abohar via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout. No such objection was raised by the Objector or by any body else at the time of consideration of the grant of permit by the State Transport Commissioner or even before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is not the case of the Objector that applications were invited vide aforesaid advertisement for Moga-Abohar via Muktsar route as well, as none existed. A perusal of the photocopy of the application submitted by permit holder shows that it has applied in response to advertisement published in Motor Transport Gazette Weekly dated 15-12-1992. The deposit of necessary fee within the time prescribed gives the complete route i.e. Moga to Abohar via Bagha Purana, Kot Kapura, Muktsar & Malout as well. The Objector has not made any grievance in respect of the application being defective before the authorities. The objection pertains to a fact. The same should have been raised at the first instance. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge that the application was not for the route advertised. 6. Learned counsel for the Objector has placed reliance upon Rule 63 Sub-Clause V of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to contend that an application for grant of permit of a vehicle is required to be accompanied by a certificate regarding payment of taxes. Since the Permit Holder has been found to be in arrears of tax, therefore, he is ineligible for grant of permit. The argument is not sustainable. The tax clearance certificate is required to be appended while submitting an application for grant of permit. Application for grant of permit was filed on 11-1-1993. On the said date, admittedly, there were no arrears. Still further, the permit was granted on 9-3-1999 by the State Transport Commissioner after the appeal was accepted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 28-5-2001. The Objector has relied upon the demand raised by Rajasthan Authorities on 12-7-2001 i.e. after the dismissal of the appeal by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Permit Holder was not in arrears on the day the same was granted. The appeal against the said order was dismissed on 28-5-2001. The Objector has relied upon the demand raised by Rajasthan Authorities on 12-7-2001 i.e. after the dismissal of the appeal by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Permit Holder was not in arrears on the day the same was granted. Still further, the arrears are of that of State of Rajasthan whereas the application is for a permit in the State of Punjab. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the findings that the Permit Holder could not have been granted permit. 7. Another reasoning which has weighed by the learned Single Judge is that the Permit Holder has not furnished complete application along with an affidavit. The said reasoning is also not sustainable inasmuch as the Permit Holder has disclosed the possession of one mini bus permit. Learned counsel for the Objector could not point out any other deficiency in the application form. Even if there is some deficiency, the same can be said to be irregularity alone not vitiating the process of grant of permit to the Permit Holder. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal filed by the Permit Holder by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22-4-2008. The appeal filed by the Objector as well the writ petition challenging the order passed by the State Transport Commissioner and State Transport Appellate Tribunal is dismissed. Appeal Allowed.