ORDER Gangele, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the respondent No. 1-M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior. 2. The petitioner submitted an application on 28-07-2003 for grant of stage carriage permit. On the aforesaid application, four objectors, namely, Naveen Kumar Agrawal, Vinod Kumar Paramand Patidar- respondent No. 3, Akhilesh Kumar and the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Indore submitted their objections. The matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 24-09-2003. One of the objection raised before the authority was that the route for which the petitioner applied for grant of permit was not formulated in accordance with Section 68(3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988'), hence, application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permit was not maintainable, that objection has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority-respondent No. 2 on the ground that before passing the order, the State Transport Authority vide order dated 02-09-2003 approved the proposal of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The other objections raised by the objectors before the authority were in regard to timings of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15-01-2004 rejected the objections and granted stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner on the route i.e., Morkatta to Dhamnod via Bijsana, Bhawati, Bhamta, Pichhori, Badwani, Anjad, Mandawada, Talwada, Dawana, Thikari, Khalghat Phata, for one return daily trip. Against the aforesaid order, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal after holding that before formulating the route, no application could have been entertained by the respondent No. 2, hence, grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was illegal. The aforesaid order of the respondent No. 1 is under challenge before this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner ha submitted that at the time of consideration of application of the petitioner for grant of permit, the route was already formulated, hence, respondent No. 1 committed an error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relief on the following judgments: i) (1994) 6 SCC 71 Esskey Roadways (Firm) v. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service; ii) AIR 1997 SC 412 Gajraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. 4. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relief on the following judgments: i) (1994) 6 SCC 71 Esskey Roadways (Firm) v. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service; ii) AIR 1997 SC 412 Gajraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. 4. Contrary to this learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that when the petitioner submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit, no route was formulated, hence, the application of the petitioner was not maintainable. Consequently, the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner is against the law. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments: i) AIR 1969 SC 1130 R. Obliswami Naidu v. Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors.; ii) AIR 2006 Rajasthan 180 Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and iii) W.P. No. 3258/2008 [M/s Anurag Bus-Service, Tikamgarh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Ors., a reported judgment of this Court passed on 8-8-2008]. 5. The moot question for decision before us is that whether an application for grant of stage carriage permit is maintainable before formulation of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on 28-07-2003 on the route i.e., Morkatta to Dhamnod via Bijsana, Bhawati, Bhamta, Pichhori, Badwani, Anjad, Mandawada, Talwada, Dawana, Thikari, Khalghat Phata, for one return trip daily. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of the application the route for which the petitioner applied for grant of permit was not formulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 68(a)(ca) of the Act of 1988. As observed by the respondent No. 1j in the impugned order there was an endorsement on the application of the petitioner on 04-08-2003 by the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that the proposal for formulation of route was sent to the respondent No. 1 for approval and thereafter on 02-09-2003 the proposal was accepted by the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 further observed in the impugned order that in the noting dated 04-08-2003 there was no mention about the serial number of proposal and date. 6. Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988, which was inserted by way of amendment by Act of 54 of 1995 (w.e.f. 14-11-1994), gives power to the Government to formulate route for plying stage carriages. 6. Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988, which was inserted by way of amendment by Act of 54 of 1995 (w.e.f. 14-11-1994), gives power to the Government to formulate route for plying stage carriages. The relevant portion of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988 is as under: 68. Transport Authorities: (1) * * * * * * (2) * * * * * * (3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under Section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely: (a) * * * * * * (b) * * * * * * (c) * * * * * * [(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages; and] 7. Section 70 of the aforesaid Act of 1988 prescribes for application for grant of stage carriage permit, which is as under: 70. Application for stage carriage permit.- (1) An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) or as a reserve stage carriage shall, as far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely: (a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates; (b) the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle; (c) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, Section 72, Section 80 and Section 102, "trip" mens a single journey from one point to another, and every return journey shall be deemed to be a separate trip; (d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions; (e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing, maintenance and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (f) Such other matters as may be prescribed. (2) An application referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed. (2) An application referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed. From Section 70(1)(a) of the Act of 1988, it is clear that an application for permission in respect of stage carriage must have to mention the particulars that the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that in the application the applicant has to mention the route or the routes or the area or areas to which he intends to get permit. Prior to Section 70 of the Act of 1988, Section 68(3)(ca) of the aforesaid Act gives power to the State Government to formulate routes or route for plying stage carriages. The aforesaid provisions if be reads in consonance then it is crystal clear that an application for grant of stage carriages permit could only be submitted on the route which has been formulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 443 , has held as under in regard to object of the Act of 1988: A comparative reading of the provisions of the Act and the Sold Act (1939) makes it clear that the procedure for grant of permits under the new Act has been liberalised to such an extent that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. 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 S.47 and S.57 under the new 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. (Paras 5, 6) There is no threat of any kind whatsoever under the new Act from any authority to the enjoyment of the right of the existing operators under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on the occupation of transport operators. More operators mean healthy competition and efficient transport system. (Paras 5, 6) There is no threat of any kind whatsoever under the new Act from any authority to the enjoyment of the right of the existing operators under Article 19(1)(g) to carry on the occupation of transport operators. More operators mean healthy competition and efficient transport system. Overcrowded buses, passengers standing in the aisle, persons clinging to the bus-doors and even sitting on the roof-top are some of the common sights in this country. Moreoften 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 hands of few persons thereby giving rise to a kind of monopoly, adversely affecting the public interest. It cannot be said that too many operators on a route are likely to affect adversely the interest of weaker section of the profession. 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 the 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. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Machindranath Kernath Kasar v. D.S. Mylarappa and Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 2545 , has held as under in regard to object of the Act of 1988: 16. Motor Vehicles Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. When a law is enacted to consolidate and amend the law, the Legislature not only takes into consideration the law as it has then been existing but also the law which was prevailing prior thereto. 10. Motor Vehicles Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles. When a law is enacted to consolidate and amend the law, the Legislature not only takes into consideration the law as it has then been existing but also the law which was prevailing prior thereto. 10. The Hon'ble Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Rajasthan 180, has held that an application for grant of stage carriage permit could only be maintainable after formulation of routes or route. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (Supra) quoted above has clearly observed that one of the object of the Act of 1988 is elimination of corruption and favouritism in the process of granting permits. If the arguments advance by the learned Counsel for the petitioner be accepted that the application can be filed before formulation of route, then it will lead a favouritism and corruption because intended applicant must see favour for the purpose of formulation of route and in that circumstances, the S.T.A. would not exercise its powers independently in regard to formulated of route. This point further finds support from the fact of the present case that on the application of the applicant, the Regional Transport Authority made an endorsement in regard to resolution of the formulation of the route and that resolution has been accepted subsequently by the STAT before granting permit to the petitioner. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu v. Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors. reported in AIR 1969 SC 1130 , has held as under in regard to a case which was under old Act: If a contrary view, viz. that the R.T.A. can determine the question as to the number of stage carriages required on a route at the time it considers applications made by operators for stage carriage permit for that route, is taken it will throw open the door for manipulations and nepotism. The operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position. The R.T.A. will have no opportunity to choose between competing operators and hence public interest would suffer. The operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position. The R.T.A. will have no opportunity to choose between competing operators and hence public interest would suffer. Such a view cannot also be justified by suggesting that Sub-section (3) of Section 57 is wide enough to allow the competing operators to apply for the route in question when the first application is published and representations called for. Section 57(3) merely permits representations to be made in respect of the application published. Such representations cannot take the form of competing applications. The word "representations" in Section 57(3) does not include applications for the route. (Paras 5, 7) 13. On the basis of above discussion, we hold that formulation of route under Section 68(3)(ca) is condition precedent before filing an application for stage carriage permit under Section 70 of the Act of 1988 for grant of permit. 14. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that subsequently the permit of the petitioner has been renewed, hence, the permit of the petitioner is saved could not be accepted because the permit granted to the petitioner was under challenge throughout and renewal of permit does not validate the initial illegality in regard to grant of permit in favour of the petitioner. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gajraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 412 , is distinguishable on facts because the facts of the case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the aforesaid judgment are with regard to right of renewal of permit which was granted under the old Act. 15. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition. The respondent No. 2-Regional Transport Authority is directed to issue fresh process for grant of permit on the route which is under challenge and it will be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Upto that period, because the petitioner has been operating since 15-1-2004, he be permitted to operate on the route in question for plying stage carriage.