JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THESE two Writ Petitions pertain to the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Tikamgarh-Gwalior, via Niwari, Jhansi and Dabra, which is an interstate route, and they are disposed of by a common order. ( 2. ) THE events leading to the present controversy may be shortly stated: by a reciprocal agreement between the State Governments of Madhya pradesh and Uttarpradesh, under section 43 (1) (iv) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the "act"), (he State of Madhya Pradesh was allocated amongst others, the route Tikamgarh-Gwalior, via Niwari, Jhansi and dabra for the grant of 2 single trips daily. The interstatal route in question admittedly passes through two regions i. e. , those of the Regional Transport authority, Gwalior and the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa (hereinafter referred to as the"rta" ). There were applications received by both the R T As for grant of the permit. Thus, the petitioner Ratanlal had applied before the rta,gwalior, while, the other petitioner Shersingh to the RTA,rewa. ( 3. ) THE State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the"sta"), purporting to exercise its powers under section 44 (3) (a) of the Act, directed that the applications for permit on this route, though received by both the authorities, should be decided only by the RTA,gwalior. In view of that direction, the RTA,rewa, sent all the applications received by it for grant of permits on this route, including the one of the petitioner Shersingh,to the RTA,gwalior. The RTA,gwalior, however, returned the applications, back to the RTA,rewa, on the ground that application submitted to one authority cannot be transferred to another authority. ( 4. ) WHILE upholding the view of ths R T. A , Gwalior, this Court in Sher singh v. S. T Authority, Gwalior ( 1969 MPLJ 90 = AIR 1969 MP 92 .) observed-"in case of an interstatal route which passes through two or more regions the Regional transport Authority of all these regions may receive applications for grant of permit if contestants for permits on such a route reside or have their place of business in different regions, for application for permit on such a route can be made to the Regional Transport authority of the Region where the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. This is what happened in the instant case. This is what happened in the instant case. As already stated the respondent No. 3 made his application to the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior whereas the petitioner and some others made their applications to the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa. In the normal course these applications cannot be heard together or disposed of by one Authority. The Gwalior Authority must dispose of the application made to it and similarly the applications made to the Rewa Authority must be disposed of by that Authority. The total number of permits that can be granted on the route by the Madhya Pradesh Authorities is limited by the interstatal agreement to two single trip permits. " The Court then cancelled,by saying: "it was open to the State Transport Authority, if it thought fit so to do, to have exercised its power under section 44 (3) (b) and to have assumed jurisdiction for granting permits on the inter-regional route. Had this course been adopted and suitable direction issued under sub-section (4), all applications for permits could have been decided by the state Transport Authority itself. This course would have also been in public interest and fair to all the applicants It would still be open to the State Transport Authority, if it so thinks fit, to act under sub-sections (3) (b) and (4) of section 44. " ( 5. ) IN consonance with the observations made by this Court, the S. T. A. passed two orders on 6th February, 1969, one was a general order under section 44 (3) (b) of the Act, which translated runs thus : "id exercise of the powers under section 44 and section (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh resolves that with effect from the date of the publication of this resolution in the Official Gazette, (1) The State Transport Authority shall hereinafter g ant all types of permits, renewals, transfers etc. on inter-regional and interstatal routes. In respect of these routes State Transport Authority shall perform all the duties hitherto being performed by the Regional Transport Authority; (2) All types of permits on interstatal routes shall be countersigned by the State Transport Authority. on inter-regional and interstatal routes. In respect of these routes State Transport Authority shall perform all the duties hitherto being performed by the Regional Transport Authority; (2) All types of permits on interstatal routes shall be countersigned by the State Transport Authority. " The other was a special order pertaining to the interstatal route in question and was to the effect: "we have carefully considered the arguments put forth by the two counsel and have perused the order of the High Court dated 28-10-68. The observations made by the honble Judges in paras. 6 and 7 of the order make it amply clear that it would have been in public interest and fair to all the applicants if the State Transport Authority had assumed jurisdiction by exercising powers under section 44 (3) (b) and further that it would still be open to the State Transport Authority if it so thinks fit to act under sub-sections 3 (b) and 4 of section 44. The State Transport Authority accordingly in exercise of the powers conferred under clause 3 (b) of section 44, Motor Vehicles Act and in supersession of resolution dated 16-11-66 in so far as it relates to this route, hereby resolves that the stage carriage permit in respect of Tikamgarh-Gwalior via Niwali, Jhansi and Dabra interstate route shall be granted by the State Transport Authority. " ( 6. ) THERE are two main question raised, first, whether the S. T. A. could issue a direction under section 44 (3) (b), in relation to an interstatal route, or perform the duties of the R. T. A. in the, matter of grant of permits on such routes; and, the second, whether the S. T. A. could issue a general order of the nature that it did under section 44 (3) (b) of the Act. The answer to both the questions must, in our view, be in the affirmative. ( 7. ) SUB-SECTIONS (I) and (3) of section 44 in so far as material for our purposes, read as follows: "s 44. Transport Authorities- (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute for the State, a Slate Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3 )." "s. 44 (3 ). ) SUB-SECTIONS (I) and (3) of section 44 in so far as material for our purposes, read as follows: "s 44. Transport Authorities- (1) The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute for the State, a Slate Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3 )." "s. 44 (3 ). A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 43, and subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this act shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely,-" "s. 44 (3) (b ). To perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such authority and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;" ( 8. ) IT is, first, urged that the S. T. A. having been constituted for the State, has no extra-territorial jurisdiction; and, secondly, that under section 44 (3) (b)the S. T. A. can only issue a direction in relation to inter-regional routes. The submission is that the words "two or more regions" appearing in section 44 (3) (b)must, in the context in which they appear, be interpreted to mean " two or more regions within the State" and cannot be construed to mean "two or more regions either in the same State or in different States. " There is no substance in any of these contentions. ( 9. ) IT is clear that the Legislature has not in sub-section (3) of section 44 of the Act, confined the term "region" or "regions" only to regions lying within one State. It is, therefore, legitimate to infer that in section 44, sub-section (3)when it is said that the S. T. A. may perform the duties of the RTA. in respect of any route common two or more regions, the S. T. A. , is entitled to discharge the functions of the R. T. A. in relation to a route which lies in two regions lying in different States as well. In other words, the S T. A. can discharge the functions of the R. T. A. in relation to an interstatal route, which necessarily lies within the two regions of different States. In other words, the S T. A. can discharge the functions of the R. T. A. in relation to an interstatal route, which necessarily lies within the two regions of different States. [see, Ratanlal v. Chairman, R. T A. ( AIR 1970 Raj. 125 .), samarathmal v. Jugaldas ( AIR 1974 Raj. 104 .) and Khemchand v. S. T. Authority (AIR 1974 Orissa 104)]. The question of extraterritoriality, in our view, does not arise when by a reciprocal agreement, between two States, the particular State for which the ST A. has been constituted, is entitled to receive an application for grant of a permit on such route. ( 10. ) ( That construction of sect on 44 (3) (b) of the Act, finds support in the decision of their Lordships in State of Rajasthan v. Noor Mohammad ( AIR 1973 SC 2729 .), where it was observed: "in our opinion, the first contingency is the one when a Regional Transport Authority is not functioning. In that contingency, all the duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority are expected to be carried out by the State Transport Authority. Then ws have two more contingencies in which the State Transport Authority may take over the duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority. Both these contingencies arise in a situation where the duties of the Regional Transport Authority have to be performed in respect of any route common to two or more regions " the first contingency brooks of no limitation while contingencies (2) and (3) are limited in scope. " "the second contingency takes into account the authority of the State Transport Authority to take over the specific duties of Regional Transport Authority with regard to a common route if it thinks fit. Since the State Transport Authority is for the whole state and has a wider jurisdiction than the separate regional authorities, it is only to be expected that the State Transport, Authority may, in a fit case, take over the functions of the Regional transport Authority with regard to any route common to two or more regions. The third contingency is also a matter of convenience. The third contingency is also a matter of convenience. A Regional Transport Authority.-though clothed with the powers to issue permits with regard to a route common to two or more regions, may for several reasons think it appropriate that his function may be more conveniently performed by the State Transport Authority being a superior Authority with jurisdiction over the several regions and in such a case when a request is made by the Regional transport Authority, the State Transport,authority would be entitled to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority. " Their Lordships were, in that case, dealing with an interstatal route. That was also the case in Shersingh v. S. T. Authority, Gwalior (supra ). ( 11. ) THE second point need not detain us for long. No doubt, their lordships of the Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar general order issued under section 43 (b), have in State of Rajasthan v. Moor Mohammad (supra), observed that the S T A in that case, could not have assumed the powers of the R. T. A. , in the matter of grant of interstatal and inter-regional permits. . The decision is, however, distinguishable. In that case, the State Government had issued a direction under section 43 (1) (iv) to the effect that the R. T. A. was to invite applications for grant of permits on inter-State routes. That being so, their Lordships, interpreting the words "save as otherwise provided" in section 44 (3 ). held that the powers of the R. T. A. under section 44 (3) (b) were subject to the directions issued by the State Government. In the present case, there is no such direction issued by the State Government under section 43 (i) (iv ). ( 12. ) AS a matter of construction, we do not see why the provisions of section 44 (3) (b) of the Act should be given a restricted meaning. The submission rests on the word "any", and it is said that the S. T. A. could, if it so thicks, perform the duties of the R. T. A. only in relation to a particular route common to two or more regions. The word "any" must, in the context in which it appears, mean "each and every". That construction is not only more rational, but is a construction beneficial to the public. The word "any" must, in the context in which it appears, mean "each and every". That construction is not only more rational, but is a construction beneficial to the public. The S. T. A. may, therefore, assume the powers of the R. T. A. , generally in the public interest, with respect to all interstatal routes, or with respect to a particular route, depending upon the circumstances. ( 13. ) THE two questions raised before us are now purely academic, but we nonetheless thought it necessary to deal with them since they were argued at length. ( 14. ) SECTION 45 of the Act, so far as it is material prior to its amendment, reads as follows: "45. General provision as to applications for permits.- (1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles : provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. " The 2nd proviso led to certain practical difficulties in regard to the grant of permits for interstatal routes. The application for permit on such a route had to be made only to the R. T. A. of the region, where the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. [see, S. H. Motor Transport Co. v. R. T. Authority ( 1962 MPLJ 65 =air 1962 M P 59.) and M. R. M. Services v. S. T. Authority (1963 MPLJ 787=air 1963 M P 361. ). ] The result was that if the route passed through two or more regions, the R. T. A. of each of these regions, could receive applications for grant of permit, if contestants for permits on such a route reside or have their principal places of business in different regions. ( 15. ). ] The result was that if the route passed through two or more regions, the R. T. A. of each of these regions, could receive applications for grant of permit, if contestants for permits on such a route reside or have their principal places of business in different regions. ( 15. ) BY Act No. 56 of 1969 the Parliament, therefore, renumbered existing section 45 as sub-section (1) thereof, and inserted the following as sub-section (2)which came into effect on 2nd March 1970 and reads: "45 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the application under that sub-section shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. " The amendment seeks to remove the lacuna by clearly laying down the authority to whom the applications for permits should be made in such cases! ( 16. ) ON 24th April, 1970, the State Government issued the following order: "bhopal, the 24th April 1970-No. 1778-1767-II-A (2) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939), the State Government hereby directs that in the case of public service vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the application under sub-section (1)of the said section shall be made to the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh gwalior. By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh. " The validity of the order can hardly be questioned. ( 17. ) IN the result, both the petitions must fail and are, therefore, dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.