( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions raise identical questions for resolution and so we are inclined to dispose them of by this common judgment Suffice it to mention the facts in W. P. 166 of 89 The "petitioner is an interstate operator originally plying on the route Madras to Arambakkam and this route, by virtue of the Inter-State Transport Reciprocal Agreement between the governments of Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu notified in G. O. Ms.-No. 715 home (Transport-1) dated 2-6-1975, was allotted to the State of Tamilnadu. He applied to the Tamilnadu State Transport Authority seeking variation of I the route by extension from Madras to Arambakkam as Madras to Sullurpet. When the State Transport Authority, Madras dismissed his application he preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras which by its order dated 23-12-1975 allowed the appeal and granted the variation in consequence of which the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh was asked by its counterpart in Madras to grant concurrence. The State Transport authority, Andhra Pradesh rejected the request for concurrence on the ground that a part of the route in question is covered by one of the route