1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of countersignatures by the Karnataka State Transport Authority to the two permits granted to him in the State of Kerala is the question that arises for determination in these writ petitions.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 3-11-2012 (Annexure V) passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore.

3. Facts in brief : The petitioner was granted Stage Carriage Permits bearing No. 43 / STA / 86 and No. 44 / STA / 86 for the two routes namely Thalangara to Mangalore & Parasinakadavu to Mangalore respectively. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid permits relating to the two routes were operative till 4-8-2009 & 15-10-2009 respectively. The petitioner applied for renewal of the said permits before the Kerala State Transport Authority. The Kerala State Transport Authority renewed both the permits for a period of five years; from 5-8-2009 to 4-8-2014 in respect of permit No. 43 and from 16-10-2009 to 15-10-2014 in respect of permit No. 44. When the said permits were submitted to the Karnataka State Transport Authority for countersignatures, the Karnataka State Transport Authority refused to countersign the same as per the two separate orders dated 11-11-2011 produced as Annexures - R & S. Being aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal to the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 1147 & 1148/2011. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 3-11-2012 (Annexure V) dismissed the said appeals and upheld the rejection on the ground that the aforesaid inter - State routes are not specified in any of the reciprocal agreements between Karnataka and Kerala or in any of the notifications dated 21-5-1963, 29-6-1976 and 26-6-1976 which are produced as Annexures B, K2 & K3 respectively. Consequently, it also dismissed the petitioner's Revision Petitions in R. P. Nos. 705 & 706 of 2011 by holding that the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of single point tax in the absence of renewal of the permits.

4. Sri S. P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. C. V. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the writ petitions, placed reliance on the notification dated 21-5-1963 (Annexure B) issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of the power conferred on it under S.43(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and further referred to sub-section (4) of S.81 & S.217A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that the permits in question should have been countersigned by the Karnataka State Transport Authority. They also submitted that the renewal of a permit cannot be rejected on any of the grounds other than the one that are enumerated in S.81(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. In my opinion, the aforesaid provisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant in the context of grant of countersignature to an inter - State route permit. The relevant legal provision to be looked into is S.88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which relates to validation of permits including the one relating to inter - State routes.

6. Unless there is an authorised inter - State route, it is not permissible to any State Transport Authority to countersign an inter - State route permit. This is the law laid down by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in A. Venkatakrishnan v. State Transport Authority, 2004 (11) SCC 207. It was held therein that an inter - State route permit can be granted only if there is a reciprocal agreement between the States concerned relating to the inter - State route. It is useful to quote paras 1, 2 & 8 to 13 of the said judgment:
"1. The petitioner herein applied before the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, for grant of permit on the proposed route known as Pandakkal to Palakkad (hereinafter referred to as the proposed inter - State route). A part of the said route lies in the State of Kerala and the o