CHOPRA, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal under s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8. 2. 1993 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 780 of 1993, whereby the learned single Judge has held that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Sahib Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (1) decided on August 28, 1992 the Regional Transport Authority can grant permit even in the cases where the limit has been fixed by the inter-state agreement. The only requirement of the law is that after the grant of the permit, counter-signatures of the concerned Regional Transport Authority of the inter-state route is necessary to be obtained. Thus, considering that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Sahib Ram's case (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
(2.) DETAILED arguments were advanced at the stage of the admission of the writ petition. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh entered into a mutual inter-state agreement whereby the petitioners' route Chambal Dam to Ratangarh has been included in that agreement in the Schedule at S. No. 66 and the scope fixed for the said route is 4: 1. This agreement (Annexure-P. 1) has been published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated May 6, 1975. Clause 11 (c) of the Agreement reads as under; - "the number of daily single trips and number of permits shall be strictly as fixed under the agreement and will not exceed under any circumstances. All such permits shall be got duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the case may be in other State. " The scope of the route has been saturated and hence, as per the provisions of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no permit can be granted on the petitioners' inter-statal route i. e. Ratangarh to Chambal Dam extended upto Begun. It has been contended that as per the decision in Sahib Ram's case (supra), the limit fixed under the agreement does not create a bar for the grant of a permit on the inter-statal route provided it is counter-signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of the concerned region of the another State. However, a contrary view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jhamaklal Balmukund vs. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gwalior (2) that no permit can be countersigned over and above the agreement when there is a clear ban on issuance of the permit in excess of the permits except as agreed to between the two States and, therefore, the grant of permit by the R. T. A, Udaipur Region, Udaipur or for that matter, the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh and their counter-signatures by the concerned authorities of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan beyond the limit of the scope fixed under the clause 11 (c) of the Agreement is contrary to law and agreement and so, such a increase in the scope cannot be sustained. It was, therefore, claimed that the respondents be restrained from granting or counter-signing any permit either temporary or non-temporary on the petitioners' route Ratangarh to Chambal Dam extended upto Begun over and above the scope fixed under the agreement. We have heard Mr. Ram Raj Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
(3.) THE preamble of the Agreement Annexure-P. l reads as under: - "whereas in view of the contiguity of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and considerable scope existing for development of the inter-state traffic between the two States, it is considered expedient in public interest to enter into a reciprocal transport agreement between the two States. Now, therefore, the Governors of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan hereby agree to implement terms and conditions of the agreement set out herein below: This agreement shall be valid till as a new agreement between the two States is arrived at or the existing one is rescinded after issue of six months notice on either side. THE number and routes of inter-statal permits agreed to in respect of a stage carriages, public carriages, private careers, contract carriages and temporary permits in accordance with this agreement may be reviewed periodically at the instance of either State. THE agreement shall come into force with effect from 3. 4. 1975, as from the date of coming into force of this agreement all previous agreements in the matter of road transport between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan shall stand superseded. " Clause (1) of the Agreement deals with taxation and it lays down that there shall be single point Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of all classes of vehicles covered by substantive permits within the agreed quota and countersigned by the other State. Clause (3) of the Agreement which deals with Public/private Carriers (substantive permits) lays down that it is agreed that the permits for a total of 190 public carriers and 10 private carriers belonging to each State shall be countersigned by the Transport Authorities of the other State on the recommendation of the State/regional/transport Authority concerned. Such counter-signatures shall be granted for two direct routes by the shortest distance not touching the border point. Clause (ll- (a)) provides that the Reciprocal arrangements in regard to the operation of stage carriages on inter-state routes between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan shall be according to the details contained in Appendix-'a'. Thus, the routes with distances and scopes have been provided in Appendix-'a'. THE clause (11-c) of the Agreement lays down that the number of daily single trips and number of permits shall be strictly as fixed under the agreement and will not exceed in any circumstances. All such permits shall be got duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the case may be in other State. Mr. R. R. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has frankly conceded that as per the decision of this Court in Sahib Rams's case (supra) which pertained to the inter-state route of Rajasthan and Haryana States, if the limit is fixed as regards the vehicles or the number of trips to be undertaken then of course, the permits that are granted within that limit then they have to be countersigned by the other State as per the provisions of the Agreement. It was contended by Mr. Vyas that the learned Judges of the Division Bench were wrong in holding that the formality of the counter-signatures has not been dispensed with on account of the agreement. Actually, as per the terms of the agreement, the formality of the counter-signatures has not been dispensed with. According to Mr. Vyas, while Interpreting the provisions of the law with reference to the aforesaid Rajasthan-Haryana route, in Sahib Ram's case (supra), the learned Judges of the Division Bench have come to the conclusion thai if the scope has been fixed under the agreement then also the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority is not restrained from issuing fresh permits over and above the scope fixed but what is required is that before a person operates on that route beyond the limit fixed, he will have to obtain counter-signatures of the RTA or STA concerned of the other State and if that is not done, the grant of permit will not be against the provisions of the law. Mr. Vyas has, therefore, tried to canvass before us that if by the agreement, any limit has been fixed or a ceiling has been fixed, as per the decision of Sahib Ram's case (supra), the RTA or the STA have been left free to grant permits over and above that limit provided certain formalities are complied with keeping in view the liberalised policy of grant of permits as contained in ss. 80 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ;