Judgment U.P.Singh, J. 1. After hearing the parties, the application for intervention is allowed. 2. In accordance with the earlier order of this Court passed on 6-4-1988, this application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the respondents as also the intervenors. 3. The petitioner possesses three permanent stage carriage permits. One is for the route Raxaul to Patna via Motihari, Kotwa, Khajuria, Kesharia, Sahebganj, Barkagaon, Muzaffarpur, Aghuria Bazar Chowk, Ram Dayalu Nager, Fakuli, Jatkauli ghat, Lalganj Sarai, Hajipur and the other two permits or for the route Muzaffarpur to Patna via Aghuria Bazar Chowk, Ram Dayalu Nagar, Fakuli, Jatkuli ghat, Lalganj Sarai, Hajpur These routes are in two separate regions and fall within the jurisdiction of two separate transport authorities, namely, N. B. R. T. A. (North Bihar Regional Transport Authority) and S. B. R. T. A. (South Bihar Regional Transport Authority). 4. It is needless to emphasise that after opening of the Mahatma Gandhi Sethu connecting South Bihar and North Bihar by road, the need for grant of permanent permits has arisen more for the comfort and convenience of the travelling public, also, because there is no other convenient means of communication between Patna and Muzaffarpur except the bus services. On 1st November, 1986 the respondent No. 2 (N. B. R. T. A.) brought out an advertisement inviting applications for grant of stage carriage permits for the inter-regional routes mentioned in Annexure-1. Several applications were made. The N. B. R. T. A prepared an agenda (Annexure-2) for the grant of permits on those inter-regional routes and issued notice to the applicants for grant of permits on the said inter-regional routes. The respondent No. 2 (N. B. R. T. A.) fixed a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority for considering the grant of permanent permits and the meeting was fixed for 7-4-1988. An extract of the relevant part of the agenda has been annexed (marked Annexure-2). Since the petitioner obtained an order of stay from this Court on 6-4-1988, the proposed meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on 7-4-1988 had thus to be postponed. The stay order was that pending hearing, no inter-regional permit, as mentioned in Annexure-2 shall be granted. 5. Since the petitioner obtained an order of stay from this Court on 6-4-1988, the proposed meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on 7-4-1988 had thus to be postponed. The stay order was that pending hearing, no inter-regional permit, as mentioned in Annexure-2 shall be granted. 5. The petitioners allegation in the writ application is that respondent No. 2 (N. B. R. T. A ) is purporting to issue permits on inter-regional routes including Muzaffarpur to Patna, Raxaul to Patna, Bettiah to Patna, Motihari to Patna, Bagha to Patna, Begi ghat to Patna, Ram Nager to Patna, Narkatiaganj to Patna, without prior agreement with the S. B. R. T. A. 6. Three applications have been filed on behalf of intervenors. One such application has been filed by Purushottam Narain Tandon and 3 others. According to them they are the applicants for the grant of permanent permit for the inter-regional routes, the details of which are mentioned in Annexure-2 to the writ application. Their applications were to be considered in the meeting of the N. B. R. T. A. on 7-4-1988. The other application for intervention has been filed by Bhupendra Kumar Singh and 3 others. They had been granted temporary permits on the route Muzaffarpur to Patna via Aghuria Bazar Chowk, Ram Dayalu Nager, Fakuli, Jatkuli ghat, Lalganj Sarai, Hajipur by N. B. R. T. A. and the State Transport Authority, Bihar, Patna. They had applied for grant of permanent permits in accordance with the notification of the State Government contained in Annexure-A directing that the temporary permit holders can be granted permanent permits. The third application for intervention is by Anil Kumar and another. They had also been granted temporary permits on the route Muzaffarpur to Patna via Aghuria Bazar Chowk, Ram Dayalu Nager, Fakuli, Jatkuli ghat, Lalganj Sarai, Hajipur by the N. B. R. T. A. and the State Transport Authority, Bihar Patna. In pursuance of the notification issued by the State Government directing that the temporary permit holders may be granted permanent permits they had filed their applications for grant of permanent permits. 7. Preliminary objections have been raised namely, (1) that the present writ application is not maintainable because none of these intervenors, who were applicants for the grant of inter-regional permits, details of which has been given in Annexure-2, were impleaded as party respondents in this writ application. 7. Preliminary objections have been raised namely, (1) that the present writ application is not maintainable because none of these intervenors, who were applicants for the grant of inter-regional permits, details of which has been given in Annexure-2, were impleaded as party respondents in this writ application. They were necessary parties to be heard, (2) that the writ application is premature because the Regional Transport Authority has not yet passed the final order on the applications for grant of permanent permits for the inter-regional routes as advertised by the Authority. 8. There is considerable force in the preliminary objection on the question of maintainability of the present writ application. The intervenors, who had filed their applications before the N. B. R. T. A. (respondent No. 2) for grant of inter-regional permits on the route mentioned in Annexure-2, were necessary parties. It is not disputed that their applications for grant of such permit was going to be considered at the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 7-4-1988. Without impleading them as party respondents in this writ application the order of stay was obtained on 6-4-1988. They were not heard in the matter and consideration of their application for grant of permanent permit for the inter-regional routes was stayed. Thus their right of being considered for grant of such permanent permit was very much in question and was affected without hearing them. They were necessary parties. The writ application is premature because the petitioner has come to this Court on the ground that respondent No. 2 N. B. R. T. A. is purporting to issue permit on interregional routes. Thus the N. B. R. T. A. had not yet considered the application for issue of such permits. 9. The sole point raised for consideration is that without prior agreement, no permit can be granted by the authority on Inter-regional routes. In support of this contention reliance has been placed by the petitioners counsel on a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4771/83 reported in A.I.R. 1986 Patna 84 Another Division Bench of this Court bad to consider this aspect in C.W.J.C. No. 5292/86 and there it was held that the aforesaid decision reported in -- was in conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in -- and, therefore, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for consideration. 10. 10. The Division Bench of this Court while deciding the case in C.W.J.C. No. 4771/83 reported in A.I.R. 1986 Patna 84 was, perhaps not informed about the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. V/s. Behari Lal Chaurasia reported in -- . Considering the true scope of Sec. 63 of the Act, the Supreme Court held: Under Sec. 63 a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in any other region, unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that region. The clearest implication of this provision is that even an inter-regional permit when granted is valid for the region over which the Authority granting the permit has jurisdiction, and when it is counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region, the permit becomes valid for the entire route. We are unable to agree with the counsel for the respondent that the permit has no validity what so ever until it is counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of the other region. 11. Reference has been made by the Petitioners counsel to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim V/s. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras -- . But the same is not of any assistance to the petitioners. It does not support (he contention of the petitioner that the permits for inter-regional routes could not be granted without prior agreement with its counter part. The said decision is not an Authority for the said proposition that without any prior agreement the permit of inter-regional route could not be granted. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bundelkhand Motor Transport Co. V/s. Behari Lal Chaurasia -- it has not been distinguished or dissented from in the said case of Mohd. Ibrahim (supra). 12. The provision of Sec. 43 (3) of the Act is not applicable in the case of inter-regional routes. The relevant section is Sec. 63 (1) of the Act which controls the inter-regional and inter-state permits. According to the said provision, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region shall not be valid in any other region unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that region. The question of granting permit without prior agreement in the case of interregional routes, does not arise. According to the said provision, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one region shall not be valid in any other region unless the permit has been counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority of that region. The question of granting permit without prior agreement in the case of interregional routes, does not arise. The authority of one region can grant permit subject to counter-signature of the other regional authority to make it valid for the other region. There is no provision in the statute for prior agreement in the case of grant of parties for the inter-regional routes. In this view, the petitioners contention that no permit can be granted on interregional routes without prior agreement cannot be accepted. The word agreement has been introduced in Sec. 63 (3-A) and Section 63 (3-B) of the Act only in respect of inter-state permits. There is no provision for such prior agreement for inter-regional permits. 13. In the result, this application is dismissed and the order of stay dated 6-4-1988, stating that no inter regional permit as mentioned in Annexure-2 shall be granted, is vacated.