JUDGMENT 1. - The facts which have given rise to this writ petition briefly are that the petitioner is an existing operator of Kekri-Jahajpur route, which is 40 miles in length. The aforesaid route is an inter-regional route, as a portion thereof lies in the Udaipur region of the State of Rajasthan while another portion lies in Jaipur region of the State of Rajasthan. Three non temporary stage carriage permits were granted on the route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter called the RTA) out of which one was granted to the petitioner. The RTA by its resolution dated July 7, 1975 decided to raise the limit of permits to be granted on the route from 3 to 4. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition in this Court against the order of the RTA dated July 7, 1975 revision the scope of permits on the route. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the RTA had no jurisdiction to decide the matter relating to the limit of permits to be granted on the route as it was an inter regional route and the provisions of section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') were not applicable. Learned Counsel placed strong reliance upon some observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras, etc, AIR 1970 SC 1542 in support of his contention and urged that their Lordships laid down that the number of permission inter-regional and inter-State routes should be decided by agreement of the3 Authorities concerned and that no permit could be granted either on inter regional or inter State route without any agreement of the State Transport Authorities of the Regional Transport Authorities concerned. 2. I have considered the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel. Section 47(1) of the Act proves the conditions which have to be taken into consider for the grant of a stage carriage permit, the main consideration being the interest in the public generally. Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act authorities the RTA to limit the number of stage carriage permits to be granted in any area or on any specified route within the region. Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act authorities the RTA to limit the number of stage carriage permits to be granted in any area or on any specified route within the region. Section 48 authorities the RTA to grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application made to it under section 46 of the Act, with or without modification or to refuse to grant such a permit. It may be mentioned here that section 48 no where provides that the RTA can issue permits within the region only. On the other hand it is general in nature and authorities or inter statal. The procedure for grant of a non temporary stage carriage permit has been prescribed in section 57 of the Act. Thereafter, section 63 of the Act provides that a permit granted by the RTA of one region shall not be valid in other region unless the same is counter signed by the RTA of the other region and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in other State unless it is counter signed by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned. Sub-section (3) of section 63 of the Act makes the provisions relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits applicable to the counter signatures of permits as well. The proviso to sub section (3) of section 63 of the Act, however carries out an exception and provides that in case there is an agreement entered into between two States, then the procedure prescribed for the grant of permits need not be followed in the case of grant of counter signature of permits. Then sub sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 63 of the Act make elaborate provisions as to how inter State agreements are to be arrived at between two States and how they would be published. Rule 88 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 also makes provision in respect of the counter signature of permits on inter-regional routes. If a general or a special resolution is recorded by the Regional Transport Authority of one region, then the other Regional Transport Authority may be allowed to issue permits having validity in the other region and such permits would have like effect in the region of the other Authority as if it were issued by that Authority. If a general or a special resolution is recorded by the Regional Transport Authority of one region, then the other Regional Transport Authority may be allowed to issue permits having validity in the other region and such permits would have like effect in the region of the other Authority as if it were issued by that Authority. Thus the effect of inter State agreement arrived at between two States in accordance with the provisions of sub-Sections (3A) & (3B) of Section 63 of the Act and the passing of a resolution within the provisions of Rules 88 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 is only that the procedure prescribed in respect of grant of stage carriage permits would no longer be required to be followed in the case of grant counter-signatures of inter-State and inter-regional stage carriage permits. But from these provisions it cannot be inferred that in the absence of an inter State agreement or a resolution passed by the RTA under Rule 88 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, an inter State or inter regional permit would not at all be granted by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority in the other State or other region. The provisions referred to above only lead to the conclusion that in case permits on inter State or inter Regional routes are granted after an agreement is arrived a between the Authorities of the two States or two Regions concerned, then the following of lengthy procedure for grant of counter signatures of such permits would be avoided. But that does not prohibit the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be, from granting a permit in respect of an inter State or inter regional route to the absence of an inter State or inter regional agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ibrahim's case (1):- "We are therefore of opinion that Section 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 authorities in two States or two regions will ensure agreement and act in concert as the case may be. Ibrahim's case (1):- "We are therefore of opinion that Section 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 authorities in two States or 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 Regional Transport Authority but they will be for the region only. The number of services for inter regional or inter State routes beyond the frontier or the region will have to be determined by agreement." On the basis of the aforesaid observations, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the number of services to be performed on the inter State or inter regional routes could only be determined by agreement of the Transport Authorities of the two States or regions concerned. I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The observations extracted above were made by their Lordships in an absolutely different context. The question raised before their Lordships was as to whether Section 47 (3) could be made applicable to the fixation of limit of permits in respect of inter regional and inter State routes. There can be doubt from a bare reading of the provisions of Section 47 (3) itself that the said sub section is limited in its ambit to the fixation of the limit of permits on inter regional route and does not apply to the grant of permits on inter State or inter regional routes. But to hold that because Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Act is not applicable to inter State and inter regional routes, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority concerned is not empowered to grant inter State of inter regional permits, without having recourse to an agreement between the two States or the two Regional Transport Authorities concerned would, in my humble view, be3 misleading. If that view is taken then the provisions of Sub section (3) of Section 63 would be rendered entirely nugatory. Section 63(3) is applicable in those cases where there is no agreement between the States or the Regional Transport Authorities concerned in respect of grant of permits on any inter State or inter Regional route. If that view is taken then the provisions of Sub section (3) of Section 63 would be rendered entirely nugatory. Section 63(3) is applicable in those cases where there is no agreement between the States or the Regional Transport Authorities concerned in respect of grant of permits on any inter State or inter Regional route. A Regional Transport Authority is empowered to grant a permit beyond its frontiers in respect of an inter State or inter Regional route, but such permit would have validity beyond the frontier of the State or the region only after it is counter signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of the other State or the other Region concerned. If a Regional Transport Authority can grant a permit on an inter regional route or an inter state route, it can also decide for itself as to how many permits would be granted by it on that route. The determination of the number of permits which the Regional Transport Authority would grant in respect of an inter State or inter regional route can be done either at the time of grant of permits or even earlier, because the provisions of Section 47 (3) are not applicable to the determination of the number of permits to be granted in respect of an inter State or inter regional route. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority from deciding the number of permits to be granted by it on any inter State or inter regional route, at the time of the grant of such permits. Of course the grant of such permits by the Regional Transport Authority would always be subject to the decision of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of the other State or other region regarding counter signatures thereof, so far as the validity of such permits in the other State or the other region is concerned. 3. In the present case, the RTA decided to increase the number of permits which it had earlier granted on an inter regional route and as there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act prohibiting the determination of the number of permits to be granted by any Regional Transport Authority on the inter regional or inter State route. 3. In the present case, the RTA decided to increase the number of permits which it had earlier granted on an inter regional route and as there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act prohibiting the determination of the number of permits to be granted by any Regional Transport Authority on the inter regional or inter State route. I see no reason to hold that the decision of the RTA in that respect was invalid in any manner. It would no doubt be better if the question of grant of permit on inter State or inter Regional routes is considered by the Regional Transport Authorities of State Transport Authorities of the two regions or the two States concerned by agreement amongst themselves. However, in the absence of any such agreement, the Regional Transport Authority is not precluded from granting permits on an inter State or inter regional route, subject to the condition that such permits are counter signed by the Regional Transport Authority or State Transport Authority of the other region or State. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any provision in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules made thereunder which prohibited the RTA from determining the number of permits to be granted by it on an inter State or inter regional route. It is obvious that if any authority decides to grant permits on an inter State or inter Regional route, it must also determine as a matter of self restraint or for the exercise of its own discretion, as to how many permits it would like to grant on the inter State or inter regional route concerned, keeping in view the provisions of Section 47 (1) of the Act. As I have already observed above the determination of the number of permits to be granted by the Regional Transport Authority on an inter State or inter regional route could be made either at the time of grant of such permits or even at earlier stage and in this view of the matter, I do not find that the RTA has committed any error of jurisdiction or even any error of law in deciding that it would now grant four permits on the route in question instead of three. 5. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 5. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******