CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (S. T. A. T.) dated 24. 7. 2000 (Annx. 6) by which the learned Tribunal has quashed the Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority (R. T. A.) dated 2. 4. 1998 (Annex. 5) by which the R. T. A. had rejected the applications for grant of permit on the route on the ground that there was no vacancy as per the inter-state reciprocal agreement.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner No. 1 and the predecessor in interest of petitioner No. 2 had been granted permit on the route Sidhmukh- Hisar via Gorchi inter state route lying between the State of Rajasthan and Haryana, in view of the provisions of reciprocal inter-state agreement dated 8. 2. 1968 which provided that the Rajasthan State shall grant two permits and each permit holder shall have a single trip daily on the aforesaid route. THE said permits had been counter- signed by the competent authority in the State of Haryana. THE said permits stood renewed from time to time and are valid upto 6. 4. 2003. THE States entered into a new agreement which was finalised on 9. 7. 1997 and was published in the Gazettee on 15. 7. 1997 (Annx. 4) which provided only two permits on the aforesaid route with two single tripes for the State of Rajasthan. THE relevant clauses of the said agreement have been that the said agreement shall supersede all earlier agreements and conditions set-out therein. However, so far as the Stage Carriage Permits are concerned it provided inter alia as under:- (iv) All the previous Stage Carriage Permits which are countersigned by either State before coming in force of this agreement, shall remain in force. After the publication of the said agreement the respondent No. 3 and others filed applications for grant of permits on the said route, however the R. T. A. vide its Resolution dated 2. 4. 1998 rejected the applications on the ground that there was no vacancy against which these applications could be considered. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied respondent No. 3 challenged the said Resolution by filing appeal No. 116/2000 which has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 24. 7. 2000 (Annx. 6) holding that though the permits granted under the old agreement had been saved and protected but they shall not be included in the strength fixed by the agreement dated 15. 7. 1997, hence it quashed the Resolution dated 2. 4. 98 and directed the R. T. A. to consider the applications. Hence this petition. It is settled legal proposition that law does not permit an Authority to grant permit over and above the ceiling fixed by the inter-state agreement (vide Ashawani Kumar & Anr. vs. R. T. A. (1), and Zamindara Motor Transport Co-operative Societies vs. R. T. A. If the permits granted under the agreement of 1968 had been saved and protected by the new agreement of 1997 and no permit can be granted over and above the ceiling fixed by the inter- state agreement, the view taken by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The interpretation put to the said agreement by the learned Tribunal tantamounts to grant of permit over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement and such an interpretation is not permissible.
(3.) THUS, in view of the above the authority has no competence to grant a permit over and above the ceiling fixed by reciprocal agreement as it would violate the mandate of law laid down in Ashawani Kumar (supra) and Zamindara Motor Transport Co-operative Societies (supra ). Therefore, clause (iv) of the agreement which was published on 15. 7. 97 cannot be interpreted in a way that the permits granted and countersigned under the old agreement of 1968 would be in addition to the number fixed by the said agreement. Shri R. P. Dave, learned counsel for the respondents has raised the issue that in many cases prior to the said judgments in Ashawani Kumar and Zamindara Motor Transport Co-operative Societies (supra) permits had been granted over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement and had been countersigned by the other State and even now the vehicles plying on the route may be over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement. When the Hon'ble Supreme Court interprets the provisions of law it is presumed that it is an interpretation of law from its very inception and all the acts done in contravention thereof cannot be purported to have passed or done under the Statute and such permits cannot be protected/saved. ;