( 1 ) BY this petition, by a stage carriage operator, a common order made by the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in Appeal nos. 223, 224, 264, 255 and 289 of 1969 has been challenged. ( 2 ) THE material facts are these: The petitioner preferred an application for a permit to the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) South Kanara for the route, Mangalore to Jog and back. After certain proceedings which it is unnecessary to set out, the RTA ultimately took the matter up for consideration on 17-2-1969 and granted the permits prayed for. It is undisputed that the route in question is an inter-regional one. The objectors and other operators preferred several appeals separately, as detailed earlier, to the STAT against the said order of grant by the RTA. The STAT set aside the grant on almost the sole ground that the route being an interregional route, in the absence of prior consultation with the RTA of the other region over which the route traverses as required by Rule 123 (2) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Rules of 1963, the permit would be invalid. Hence this petition. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that there has not been any prior consultation with the RTA of the other region, namely, Shimoga District. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the decisions relied on by the STAT to arrive at the aforesaid conclusion have not been read and interpreted properly by the said Tribunal. It is, therefore, necessary to examine briefly the several decisions cited before me, in the context of the points raised in this petition. But before doing so, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, namely S. 63 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and R. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, governing the grant of permits on interregional routes and the need for counter-signature of such permits. " 63. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. But before doing so, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, namely S. 63 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and R. 123 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, governing the grant of permits on interregional routes and the need for counter-signature of such permits. " 63. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the rta of that region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless counter-signed by the STA of that other State or by the RTA concerned :" (Provisos and other sub-sections not set out as unnecessary)" Rule 123. Grant of permits without counter-signature.- (1)The regional Transport Authority of any Region may, subject to the provisions of S. 45 of the Act, issue a permit to be valid in any other region or regions within the State without the counter-signature of the other RTA or the other RTAs concerned and shall as soon as possible send copies of such permits to the RTA or RTAs concerned. (2) The Regional Transport Authority granting permit under sub-rule (1) shall, before issuing a permit :- (i) Notify under S. 57 (3) of the MV Act 1939 the whole of the route or area which lies within the State and in respect of which an application for a permit has been received by publishing the same in the Official Gazette and by causing publication of the copies of such notification on the Notice Boards of the other RTAs concerned and shall hear the applicant and any other person making representations; (ii) Consult the Regional Transport Authority or the Regional authorities concerned ; provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in clauses (i) and (ii) above in respect of applications for a permit made under Section 68f of the Act. " ( 4 ) THE decisions cited are: M. C. Krishna Murthy v. MRAT, (1963) 2 Mys. L. J. 241, mohamed Ibrahim v. STAT, Madras, AIR. 1970. SC. 1542, M. V. Venkatappa v. STAT, (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 388, g. Veeranna v. MRAT, (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 388, and H. S. Basheer Ahmed Khan v. STAT, WP. " ( 4 ) THE decisions cited are: M. C. Krishna Murthy v. MRAT, (1963) 2 Mys. L. J. 241, mohamed Ibrahim v. STAT, Madras, AIR. 1970. SC. 1542, M. V. Venkatappa v. STAT, (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 388, g. Veeranna v. MRAT, (1971) 1 Mys. L. J. 388, and H. S. Basheer Ahmed Khan v. STAT, WP. 1569/64 dt. 26-7-1966. In Krishna Murthy's case (1), this Court was concerned with the interpretation of Rules 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Rules as were in force prior to the promulgation of the Rules of 1963. Rule 4 (b) of the said Rules was in pari materia with the present Rule 123 (2) (ii) and had enjoined prior consultation with the RTA of the other Region in regard to the grant of a permit on an inter-regional route. The Court has observed therein that in the absence of any such prior consultation, which was mandatory, the permit granted by an RTA would have no efficacy or effect. ( 5 ) THE above principle has been reiterated in Veeranna's case (4 ). In this decision, the scope, nature and manner of consultation enjoined in Rule 123, (2) (ii) has also been explained. It is however unnecessary to refer to this aspect for no question bearing on it has arisen in the instant case. In Mohamed Ebrahim's case (2) the Supreme Court had been primarily concerned with a question of determination of the number of stage carriages by a RTA in compliance with S. 47 (3) of the MV Act. The observations relied on are to the following effect, occurring 'in Para 14 of the said report :". . . We are therefore of opinion that S. 47 (3) of the Act will not apply either to grant or to counter-signatures of permits both in the case of inter-State and inter-regional permits. The relevant authoroties in two States or in two regions will ensure agreement and act in concert as the case may be. The number of services in the region can of course be fixed by the RTA but they will be for the region only. The number of services for inter-regional or inter-State routes beyond the frontier of the region will have to be determined by agreement. "i shall presently have occasion to advert to this enunciation in the light of a contention urged on behalf of the respondents. The number of services for inter-regional or inter-State routes beyond the frontier of the region will have to be determined by agreement. "i shall presently have occasion to advert to this enunciation in the light of a contention urged on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) IN Venkatappa's case (3) this Court merely followed the decision in ebrahim's case supra and held that the provisions of S. 47 (3) of the MV act would not be applicable to a case of inter-regional route. In the only remaining case of Basheer Ahmed Khan (5) this Court has explained the decision in Krishna Murthy's case (1) and has in a way observed that even in the absence of prior consultation, as enjoined under the old Rule 4 (b), the power to grant a permit on an inter-regional route had not been taken away. But any such grant to be effective in the other region will have to satisfy the requirement of counter-signature by the rta of that other region. In other words, such a permit will cease to be one granted under Rule 123, but is considered as one granted under S. 48 read with S. 63 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant observations are as follows :"it is seen from what has been stated by this Court in the said decision, that those rules which create a special procedure for the grant of inter-regional permits not requiring counter-signature, can only supplement but not supersede the power of the RTA existing under S. 63 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. What is made clear in that decision is, that if the RTA proposes to issue a permit to be valid in any other region without the counter-signature of the RTA having jurisdiction in that region, then, it should be done in accordance with the procedure laid down in the said rules; one of the conditions in those rules being the previous consultation with the RTA of the other region. But that is not to say that a permit issued under S. 63 (1) by one RTA would not be valid in another region even when the counter-signature of the RTA having jurisdiction in that another region, has been obtained to the permit. But that is not to say that a permit issued under S. 63 (1) by one RTA would not be valid in another region even when the counter-signature of the RTA having jurisdiction in that another region, has been obtained to the permit. It is clear from what has been stated in the abovesaid decision of this Court that when the counter-signature of the RTA of another region has been obtained, the permit will be valid in that other region, even though the previous consultation required under the Rules had not taken place. " ( 7 ) KEEPING the above principles in view, I shall now proceed to examine various contentions urged on behalf of the parties. In so far as the petitioner's contention, is concerned, suffice it to say that the decision of this court in Basheer Ahmed Khan's case (5) would fully support the view that any non-compliance by the RTA seized with an application for a permit on an inter-regional route, with the requirements of Rule 123 (2) (ii) of the mv Rules would not per se render the permit granted ineffective. Such a permit would nevertheless become effective in the other region the moment it is counter-signed. The view of the Tribunal to the contrary, therefore cannot be upheld. ( 8 ) THE observations in Mohamed Ebrnhim's case (2) relating to the requirement of an agreement between the RTAs concerned with an inter-regional route could perhaps have been relied on only when there had been no rules framed pursuant to S. 63 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act providing for dispensing with counter-signature by the other RTA or RTAs. In the instant case provision has been made in the shape of Rule 123 of the Motor vehicles Rules of 1963 providing for such a contingency. In this view, the said decision of the Supreme Court can be of no help in setting aside the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The impugned order of the STAT therefore, is clearly unsustainable. ( 9 ) IN the above view of the matter the first contention urged on behalf of the respondents based on the breach of the provisions of Rule 123 (2) (11) and as to the consequences of such a breach cannot prevail. The impugned order of the STAT therefore, is clearly unsustainable. ( 9 ) IN the above view of the matter the first contention urged on behalf of the respondents based on the breach of the provisions of Rule 123 (2) (11) and as to the consequences of such a breach cannot prevail. It was next contended that until such a permit on an inter-regional route, is counter-signed it will clearly partake the character of an tntra regional route and. therefore, it was the clear duty of the RTA to have made a determination of the number of state carriages to be permitted on the route in accordance with S. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act Not having done so. the order of grant would be unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Obalaswami Naidu's case, AIR 1969 SC 1130 . In my opinion, the factual assumption underlying such an argument, that such permit would be intra regional in character, is clearly unacceptable. The application is clearly for an Inter-regional route and the same requires to be dealt with a3 such. Hence, T am not persuaded to accept this contention also. ( 10 ) IN the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the STAT is, therefore, set aside. Since it is submitted that some other contentions urged on behalf of the appellants therein had not been considered, the matter will stand remitted to the said Tribunal, for a fresh disposal of the appeals in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made therein. No costs. --- *** --- .