RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, the holder of a contract carriage permit issued by the Transport Authority of Andhra Pradesh for the route Proddatur to Bangalore, applied for and secured a counter signature of the chairman of the Transport Authority, Karnataka on 9 - 11 - 2001, which when questioned in a writ petition by the State Road Transport corporation, the 2nd respondent, was allowed by order dated 3-9-2002. The petitioner claims that the order was called in question in SLP Nos. 20039 - 20053 of 2002 before the Hon'ble Supreme court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner having questioned the validity of the permit which was for a period of one year, by invokling the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, was allowed by order dated 3-10-2002, holding that the permit granted was effective for a period of five years. Thereafter the 1st respondent Karnataka State Transport authority (for short KSTA) by order dated 8 - 4 - 2003 Annexure - C granted a fresh counter signature. The 3rd respondent filed Revision petition No. 309/2003 before the Karnataka State Transport Appellate tribunal, for short KSTAT, calling in question the counter signature, while the 2nd respondent KSRTC too filed RP No. 1/2005. The kstat by common order dated 15 - 11 - 2005 Annexure 'e' allowed the Revision Petitions and set aside the counter signature. Hence this petition.

( 3 ) THE petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dated 21 - 12 - 2005 of the 3rd respondent seeking to support the order impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner the following four questions arise for consideration:

1. Whether inter - state agreement is necessary as held by the Supreme Court in the Case in ashwanl KUMAR vs REGIONAL transport AUTHORITY, BIKANAR, AIR 1999 SC 3888 for the Purpose of grant of counter signature for a contract carriage permit?

2. Whether the Kolar Pocket Scheme in respect of the stage carriage prohibits the grant of contract carriage permit?

3. Whether the Secretary, who granted the counter signature was competent to do so?

4. Whether respondents 2 and 3 who challenged counter signature before KSTAT could be considered as aggrieved persons under section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

( 5 ) SRI C. V. Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 88 of the Act, if interpreted to exclude a contract carriage permit, then, there is no need for an inter - State agreement. Learned counsel hastens to add that the Supreme Court in ASHWANI KUMAR vs REGIONAL TRANSPORT A UTHORITY, BIKANAR (Supra) held that under me provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act) it was the prerogative of the two or more concerned states only to open, establish and create an inter State route lying in the respective jurisdiction by entering into a reciprocal agreement and to get it finalized by following the procedure prescribed under sub - sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 of the Act. According to Sri Kumar, since the facts of that Case relate to a stage carriage permit, while the petitioner holds a contract carriage permit, the ratio in Ashwin Kumar's case is not applicable.

( 6 ) SRI S. V. Krishnaswamy, Learned Counsel for R3 arid Sri k. Nagaraj, Learned Standing Counsel for R2 maintain that in Ashwani kumar's Case, the interpretation of Section 88, of the Act was in relation to a permit and not in a specific Case of stage carriage permit. Learned Counsel point out to the exceptions as set out in sub - section (8) and (9), in relation to special permit and All India Permits. According to the Learned Counsel, sub - section (31) of Section 2 of the Act defines permit to mean a permit issued by a State or Regional transport Authority or an authority prescribed in this behalf under the act authorizing the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle.

( 7 ) THERE is considerable force in the submission of the Learned counsel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document