( 1 ) THE petitioner herein applied before the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, for grant of permit on the proposed route known as Pandakkal to Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the proposed inter-State route ). A part of the said route lies in the State of Kerala and the other part lies in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The State Transport Authority, Pondicherry by an order dated 17/11/2000, granted inter-State permit, as applied for by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter applied to the State Transport Authority, Kerala, for grant of countersignature. The State Transport Authority, Kerala relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and rejected the application for grant of countersignature of permit on the aforesaid inter-State route. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) WHEN this matter came up before a Bench of this Court, the Court was of the view that this case requires to be decided by a Bench of three learned Judges and it is in this way the matter has come up before us.

( 3 ) INITIALLY we were reluctant to entertain this petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, but on the statement of the learned counsel that it may be treated as a special leave petition, we treat this petition as a special leave petition.

( 4 ) LEAVE granted.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") does not contemplate a reciprocal agreement between the two States for grant of permit on an inter-State route and the decision in the case of Ashwani Kumar requires reconsideration.

( 6 ) S. 88 of the Act provides for validation of permits for use outside the region or the State. Sub-section (1) of S. 88 of the Act provides that except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. Sub-section (4) of S. 88 of the Act lays down that the provision of this chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits. The proviso to this sub-section provides that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 of the Act for the grant of countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements of sub-section (5 ). Sub-section (5) of S. 88 of the Act says that every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area, shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette, on which, and the authority by which, and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered.

( 7 ) THE expression used in sub-section (1) of S. 88 of the Act "except as may be otherwise prescribed", indicates that where an application for grant of inter-State route is to be applied