A.D.KOSHAL, J.

(1) THE facts giving rise to this appeal by the Delhi Administration on certificate granted by the High court of Delhi against its judg- ment dated 20/10/1967 in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (Civil Writ Petition 1376 of 1967) are not in dispute and may be briefly stated. The governments of the States of Punjab and Delhi entered into an agreement about 30 years back providing for the running of public service vehicles on routes which covered each of the two States so that everyone of such routes had one terminus in one of the States and the other in the other. In pursuance of the agreement one of the governments would issue permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (here- inafter referred to as the Act) and the same would be countersigned by the other State before the former plied its buses on the routes covered by such permits. One such permit related to the Delhi-Karnal, route and was countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Delhi, in the following terms:

COUNTERSIGNED for the portion of the route Delhi-Karnal from 31/07/196 7/11/1967 subject to the condition that tickets will be issued for the destinations between Delhi and Karnal. Destination board should be exhibited. Bus will cover the full route and all other conditions applicable under Motor Vehicle Laws.

(2) OTHER permits for the Delhi-Karnal route and other inter-State routes were countersigned in the same terms.

(3) THE routes above-mentioned were extended by the Punjab State authorities under permits granted by them for intra-State routes connecting different towns in the State of Punjab itself. Thus a permit was issued in favour of the Punjab Roadways for the route from Karnal to Chandigarh so that the bus operating on the Delhi-Karnal route would carry passengers from Delhi to Chandigarh via Karnal.

(4) ON 25/07/1956, officers of the two States came to an agree- ment whereby the State of Punjab was given the right to extend its services on inter-State routes to any town in the State of Punjab. This agreement was subject to ratification by the governments of the two States, which was, however, never accorded.

(5) IN the year 1966, the State of Delhi objected to the exploitation by the State of Punjab of the inter-State routes in the manner above stated, that is, by extending them beyond the termini specified in that behalf under the countersignatures made by the State of Delhi and approached the Inter- state Transport Commission (hereinafter called the Commission) constituted under Ss. (1) of S. 63A of the Act with a request for inter- ference. After heai ing counsel for the two States the Commission passed an order dated 27/08/1966, in favour of the State of Delhi. The operative part of that order alongwith the reasons listed by the Commission in support of it is extracted below:

SECTION 48(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, prescribes that every stage carriage permit shall be expressed to be valid only for a specified route or routes or for a specified area. It appears, therefore, that if a permit is expressed to be valid only for the one specified inter-State route, the same transport vehicle covered by the same inter-State permit cannot be allowed to proceed further to another route with liberty to pick up passengers en route on a second route, which is an intra-State route, as this would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. There is no objection to the same vehicle running on another route under a different permit, but it would be objectionable if passengers who embark on the route covered by the inter-State permit are given direct tickets to any town on the second route for which the vehicle holds an intra- State permit. The issue of such a direct ticket would amount to extending the span of the inter-State route, which is not permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act. In other words, there can be no objection to the linking of the t