CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is an operator of a stage carriage service on the route bangalore to Krishnagiri Via Kolar Gold fields, Kamasamudra, Dcdda Pannandahalli kanamanahalli and Kundarlapalli. He is aggrieved by the grant of counter signature to a tempoary permit issued by the State Transport Authority of Tamil nadu to the Managing Director of Anna transport Corporation-2nd respondent herein by the Secretary-Karnataka State transport Authority. The said temporary permit is granted on the route Krishnagiri to Kolar Gold Fields Via Kundalapalli, vepanapalli, Kothakrishnapalh, Kanamanapalli, bheeganapalli, Kamasamudra and Keeleri. The said route of the 2nd respondent over-laps considerable portion of the route of the petitioner and herefore he feels affected and aggrieved. He has challenged the grant of counter signature on the ground that the State transport Authority has not followed the procedure prescribed under Sec. 63 of the Mator Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for granting counter-signature to a parmit. Specifically, his contention is that grant of counter signature should nece sarily follow the p-ocadure laid down in sub-sees. (2) to (7) of Sec. 57 of the Act in terms of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the act. Sub sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act makes it clear that the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Act for grant or revocation or suspension of permits should apply to the grant, revocation or suspension of counter signature of permits with the exception provided in the proviso thereto. The 2nd respondent's case is that not falling within the exception the matter shoulj have been dealt with in accordance with the provision made, namely, sub-sees. (2) to (6) of Sec. 57 of the Act. That procedure not having been followed the counter signature is liable to be set. aside. ( 2 ) THAT contention must necessarily be upheld in the view. I have taken in w. P. No. 8789/1986 and connected matters disposed of on 21-7-1986. However, Counsal for respondent-2 strenuously urged that having regard to language of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 62 of the act and language of sub-sec (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act, there is no need to get the counter signature to a permit granted under sub-sec. However, Counsal for respondent-2 strenuously urged that having regard to language of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 62 of the act and language of sub-sec (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act, there is no need to get the counter signature to a permit granted under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 62 of the Act or in any event the procedure prescribed under Sec. 57 of the Act for grant of permits being dispensed with for grant of a temporary permit, the need for following the same procedure for counter signature also must be held to have been dispensed with by the legislature. The argument undoubtedly looks attractive. But, unfortunately, for the reasons I have given in the batch of petitions referred to earlier and the reaton I will give hereafter, the argument is without sufficient foundation. ( 3 ) UNDOUBTEDLY, in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 62 of the Act the provision is made for grant of temporary permits without following the procedure laid down in sec. 57 of the Act. The temporary permits therein are not restricted to interregional or intra-regional permits. A temporary permit may be granted even with reference to inter-state routes. Therefore, in granting such temporary permits procedure prescribed under Sec. 57 of the Act need not be followed. In fact, it should be granted without following the procedure prescribed under sec. 57 of the Act. That is the express, positive language, used in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 62 of the Act. But, Sec. 63 of the Act makes it abundantly clear, a permit i. e. , any kind of permit granted by one Regional Authority or the State transport Authority of one State will not be valid in another region or another state unless such permit is counter signed. The procedure for granting a counter signature, it is made clear in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act is the same as provided in Sec. 57 of the Act for grant of a permit. Therefore, despite dispensing with the need for following the procedure laid down in Sec. 57 of the act for grant of temporary permits; nevertheless the legislature bid not make any exception for the grant of counter signature to any class of permits or any type of permits except for the exceptions provided in the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act and what is provided in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act and what is provided in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the act. ( 4 ) UNDER the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act in respect of routes covered by inter-state agreements, permits of any kind need not be counter signed following the procedure prescribed by Sec. 57 of the Act. The counter signature follows as a matter of course by virtue of the inter-state agreement itself. Similarly, if there is a direction by the Commission constituted under sec. 63a of the Act, counter signature follows as a matter of course. The case of the 2nd respondent on hand is not covered by either of the two exceptions created under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act. ( 5 ) THEN again, a look at sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the Act clearly manifests the intention of the legislature. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the Act reads as follows :" (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1), a Regional transport Authority of one legion may issue a temporary permit under Cl. (a) or Cl. (c) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 62 to be valid in another region or State with the concurrence, given generally or for the particular occasion, of the regional Transport Authority of that other region or of the State Transport authority of that other State, as the case may be. " (Emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) AS is apparent, sub-sec. (4) of sec. 63 of the Act begins with a nonabstante clause and that has not given a general exemption from counter signa- tute procedure mandated in sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 63 of the Act except to the extent indicated in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the Act. That clearly demonstrates the legislative intent that no one State is given and no one region is given the authority to grant temporary permits without the consent generally or specifically of the other region or State to dispense with the need for grant of counter signature to such temporary permits. If it is to be held otherwise, nothing but chaos will result by one state issuing temporary permits to be valid in other States without need of counter signature. In Euch competition, private operators if any will be put out of business. That cannot be lost sight of. If it is to be held otherwise, nothing but chaos will result by one state issuing temporary permits to be valid in other States without need of counter signature. In Euch competition, private operators if any will be put out of business. That cannot be lost sight of. ( 7 ) NO doubt, a Division Bench ruling of the Court was brought to my notice in the case of Rangavilas Transport v State of Mysore and other (1968 (1) Mysore Law Journal, 365 ). This court while construing sub-sec. (3) of sec. 63 of the Act did hold that it governs the grant of temporary permits in Sec. 62 of the Act also. That, instead of assisting the 2nd respondent actually assists the petitioner. It emphasises the need to get the counter signature in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and not in disregard of that procedure. ( 8 ) I therefore do not see any compelling reason to uphold the view that sec. 62 (2) of that Act should be so read as to dispense with the procedure of Sec. 57 of the Act in regard to grant of counter signature to temporary permits as well. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel submitted that on the route in question people are very much in need of a service and the procedure required to be followed being laborious and time consuming would defeat the very purpose of seeking a temporary permit. Assuming that statement to be correct, all that this Court may do is to point out that provision specially is made in the proviso to sub- sec. (3j of Sec. 63 of the Act for the two States to enter into an agreement as well as in sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the Act whereby the concerned States may reach a general or specific agreement or settlement by which the need for following the procedure of section 57 of the Act may be dispensed with. There is no inhibition in the Act for such a course. If public interest is required to be served then the two States or more, concerned, should enter into the necessary agreement in terms of the proviso as contemplated in sub-sec. (3a) of sec. 63 of the Act or as per the arrangement made under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the Act. If public interest is required to be served then the two States or more, concerned, should enter into the necessary agreement in terms of the proviso as contemplated in sub-sec. (3a) of sec. 63 of the Act or as per the arrangement made under sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 63 of the Act. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition is required to be allowed and the counter signature granted to the 2nd respondent at Annexure-D to the petition is liable to be quashed and it is so quashed. ( 11 ) RULE is made absolute. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition is allowed. --- *** --- .