BHAGWATI PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 26.8.2000 be set aside. The Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order impugned has observed that the renewal prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted and the appeal was dismissed as time barred. The petitioners had permit on Amruka to Pahadi inter -State route with an agreement in between the State of Rajasthan and Haryana. The appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was rejected as noticed earlier on the ground of limitation. Subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, another writ petition has been filed in the name of Chandra Shekhar and Ratan Singh, the same petitioners in the earlier writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 183/2002. This writ petition is also decided by the present decision. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that the agreement in between the State of Rajasthan and Haryana dated 9th July, 1997 as published in Rajasthan Gazette on 15.7.1997 and in Rajasthan Patrika dated 22.7.1997 be quashed, so far as it relate to Amruka to Pahadi inter State route. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 88 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no counter signatures are necessary, if the renewal of the route is only 16 kms. In this light, the learned Counsel for the petitioners States that no agreement was necessary to be executed and no sealing could be fixed for the route in question. Learned Counsel for the respondents in reply has stated that in Sub -section (5) of Section 88 of Motor Vehicles Act, the line used is 'granted or countersigned'. According to the learned Counsel for the respondents, there can always be an agreement for the grant of permits and there can always be an agreement regarding counter signatures. These two are different expressions. There cannot be read in conjunction and if an agreement has been reached in between two states for a particular route, then, it cannot be said that the states were not competent to enter into an agreement. In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the respondents state that the petitioners have no right to get a permit renewed.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Goverdhan Lal Dhawan v. State of Bihar and Ors.' reported in : AIR1988SC1676 , Division Bench decision of this Court in State of Raj. and Anr. v. Gyan Singh and Anr. reported in AIR 2001 Raj. 370 and this Court in 'Zamindara Motor Transport Cooperative Society v. R.T.A. Bikaner and Ors. reported in WLC (Raj.) 1999(1) 348 has held that there can be an inter State agreement which can provide for number of permits on inter State routes and thus, the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is squarely converted by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Division Bench decision of this Court. The claim raised by the petitioners runs contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.;