( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is plying his stage carriage bus in the inter-State route - Parlakhemundi to Berhampur (via) Vasundhara, Meliaputti, Chapara, pattupuram, Garabanda, Gopili and Mandasa, under the stage Carriage permit which was granted by the Transport Authority, Orissa. It is further stated by the petitioner that the State Transport Authority, Orissa has also granted one temporary permit in favour of the 4th respondent herein to ply his bus on the route Sherango to Bhimapur (via) Parlakhemundi, Vasundhara, meliaputti, Chapara, Pattapuram, Garabanda and Goppili. The said permit is valid from 8-1-97 to 6-5-1997. It is the submission of the petitioner that the said route of the 4th respondent overlaps the notified routes in G. O. Ms. No. 1159 dated 9-11-1987 for a distance of about 25 Kms. and G. O. Ms. No. 584 dated 30-12-1978 by about 12. 5 Kms. It is, therefore, submitted that the same is prohibited as the overlapping is more than 8 Kms. in the said schemes. The grievance of the petitioner that prompted him to file this writ petition is that there is a common sector of 32 Kms. in between the petitioner s route and the route on which the 4th respondent is plying his vehicle. Thus, the petitioner was put to serious loss. The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 16-1-1997 to the State Transport Authority, Orissa and also to the 1st and 3rd respondents requesting them to prevent the 4th respondent from plying his bus on the route in question and also to cancel the permit issued to him. But, no action is taken. It is further stated that as per Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988, the permit granted to the 4th respondent has to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority in andhra Pradesh. But, it is submitted that, no such counter-signature was obtained by the 4th respondent on his permit. It is, therefore, submitted that the permit granted in favour of the 4th respondent is liable to be cancelled.

( 2 ) COUNTER is filed denying the allegations raised in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

( 3 ) THE object behind enacting the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 59 of 1988), as observed by a Full Bench of this Court in Secretary, R. T. A. , Guntur vs E. Rama rao, is to liberalise the grant of permits. As per Section 72 of the Act, the regional Transport Authority may grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application, which is to be filed under Section 70 of the Act. A plain reading of Section 80 further makes it clear that a Regional Transport Authority will not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. On a combined reading of the provisions of the old Act, i. e. , Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the new Act i. e. , M. V. Act, 1988, the Full Bench observed as follows :"it is important to note that there is no reference to any representation in Section 71 of the new Act, which corresponds to Section 47 (1) of the old Act. All that Section 71 (1) states is that the R. T. A. , shall, while considering the applications for stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of the Act . While Section 47 (3) of the old Act permitted the r. T. A. to limit permits in all routes without reference to the extent of population, the new Section 71 (3) permits such a limit to number of permits to be imposed only in towns with population of not less than 5 lakhs, that too provided the Central Government and the State government so direct, as stated in Section 71 (3) of the new Act. There is also no reference to the factors (a) to (f) referred to in Section 47 (3) or to the filing of any representations by the existing operators of associations, local authority or police authorities. Nor is there any reference to submission of representations in Section 80 (2) of the new act which corresponds to Section 57 (3) of the old Act. Further, under the first proviso to section 80 (2), the applic