1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22.4.17 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior in Revision No. 90/17.

2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this petition are in narrow compass.

3. Petitioner holds an inter-state stage carriage permit from Satna to Kanpur issued under section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). Such permits are required to be countersigned by both the States under section 88(1) of the Act, second proviso to which provides for corridor passage and reads as under:-

"Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part doesnot exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State"

4. There is an inter-state agreement (Annexure P-3) between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh for regulating plying of stage carriages on inter-state routes.

5. The controversy involved in the instant case revolves around the question as to whether the competent authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh has jurisdiction to issue temporary stage carriage permit under section 87 of the Act for the destination of which starting point is Satna and terminal point is Nardaha also falling in the State of Madhya Pradesh, though covering an area of 6 kms. falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh?

6. The revisional authority relying upon the aforesaid proviso and clause (7) of the inter-state agreement has opined that neither under the Act nor under the aforesaid agreement, there is prohibition against issuance of temporary permit by the State of Madhya Pradesh for destinations falling within Madhya Pradesh covered under proviso to section 88. The agreement also does not contemplate fixed number of permits which can be issued on an inter-state route. Instead it provides that for issuance of stage carriage permits of such routes, there shall be no requirement of counter-signatures. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the temporary stage carriage permit issued to respondent No.3 from Satna to Nardaha.

7. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.D. Sharma and Shri Santosh Agrawal, Advocates, criticizing the aforesaid order, submits that once the inter-state route is notified and for regulation of such inter-state route; stage carriage permits and buses plying thereon agreement (Annexure

P-3) has been entered into, the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to issue temporary permits. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Allahabad High Court referred to in the judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmiri Lal v. State of M.P. [(2015(2) MPLJ 245), to bolster his submissions. In the alternative, learned counsel contends that even assuming that the State Transport Authority has jurisdiction to issue temporary permits, then also, until and unless requirement of section 87 of the Act is fulfilled, the exercise of power to issue temporary permits in succession, in fact and in effect, tantamounts to fraud on power and is an instance of colorable exercise of power. The authority is required to record its satisfaction objectively upon consideration of relevant factors enumerated in section 87 of the Act while issuing temporary permits. In the instant case, the State Transport Authority has not applied its mind in the matter of issuance of stage carriage permits. In any case, since the temporary permit issued to respondent No.3 on 9.2.2017 is coming to end on 31.5.2017, the Authority must apply its mind before issuing further temporary permits under section 87 of the Act, as petitioner apprehends that such recourse is