There is no time limit for obtaining approval of counter signing authority.

K.A. Swami, C.J.

These two writ appeals are preferred by the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, against the common order dated 30th July, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge allowing Writ Petition Nos.2552 of 1995 and 561 of 1996.

2. In Writ Petition No.2552 of 1995, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 21. 1995 passed by the Transport Commissioner in Proceedings R.No.E2/48055/94 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,04,400 being the difference of the tax which had become payable, according to the Transport Commissioner, in view of the fact that after the permit was transferred to the petitioner, he did not immediately obtain the counter-signature and as such, there had been delay in applying for continuance of counter-signature for the period from 14. 1993 to 17. 1994. In the other writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Transport Commissioner to grant counter-signature to the permit.

3. The learned single Judge has taken the view that there is no time-limit prescribed for grant of countersignature to the permit relating to the route covered by inter-State Agreement when it is transferred by the permit-holder to another. Therefore, the delay in making the application for grant of counter-signature did not have the effect of taking away the permit out of the inter-State Agreement covering the route and thereby did not make him liable for payment of the tax as demanded.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant has laid a stress on the fact that countersignature was required to be obtained by the petitioner immediately on the transfer, which was effected on 14. 1993; that as per Rule 213(5) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), on the transfer of the permit, the counter-signature, ceased to exist, therefore, during the period, when the counter-signature ceased to exist, the concession available in payment of tax was not available to the petitioner, hence, the demand made for payment of the motor vehicles tax is justified. On the contrary, it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent in the appeals that the counter-signature of the permit covered by the route relating to Inter-Stale Agreement is covered by Sec.88(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act") Rule 2 13 of the Rules does not cover the counter-signature, that there is a distinction maintained in the Rules relating to countersignature, endorsement and extension of the permit. That being so, the fact that there was a delay in making an application for counter-signature did not in any way affect the operation of the permit, as it was the one relating to the route covered by Inter-State Agreement and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner had become liable for payment of the amount of tax as demanded by the Transport Commissioner.

5. Sec.88 of the Act which occurs in Chapter V relates to validation of permits for use outside region in which it is granted. Sec.88(4) of the Act further provides that the provisions of that Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits. The proviso thereto specifically exempts the procedure to be followed for grant of counter-signature in relation to (he routes covered by Inter-State Agreement. The said proviso reads thus:

"Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Sec.80 for the grant of counter-signatures 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-sec.(5)."

In cases where an agreement has been arrived at as per Sub-sec (5) of Sec.88 of