JUDGMENT K.T. Thomas, J. 1. Petitioner has filed an application for a regular stage carriage permit on a long distance route covering four regions. The application was presented before the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram (for short ' the R.T.A., Malappuram') within whose territorial limits major portion of the route lies. On the request made by the R.T.A., Malappuram concurrence was granted by the Regional Transport Authorities of Thrissur, Palakkad and Kozhikode as provided in R.203A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1961 (for short 'the Rules'). The R.T.A., Malappuram notified the application under S.57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act'). On 5-7-1988, R.T.A., Malappuram after hearing the petitioner and also some other persons who made representations, took a decision to invite applications afresh under S.57(2) of the old Act. Though the said decision was challenged in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') and later in an Original Petition filed in this Court the order of the R.T.A, Malappuram dated 5-7-88 remained undisturbed. Applications were received from respondents 4 to 7 in response to the notification., R.T.A, Malappuram referred those applications for concurrence to the other Regional Transport Authorities concerned, but concurrence was refused by all those authorities. In the light of such refusal, R.T.A., Malappuram rejected all the applications, including the application submitted by the petitioner, as per Ext. P4 order. Appeals were filed against Ext. P4 order before the Tribunal by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. The Tribunal took the view that since concurrence was granted by the other Regional Transport Authorities concerned in respect of one permit on this route, it is for the R.T.A., Malappuram to consider as to who among the applicants is most qualified for the grant of permit. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside Ext. P4 order and directed the R.T.A. Malappuram to take a decision afresh. A copy of the Tribunal's order is produced as Ext. P5. Petitioner challenges Ext. P5 in this Original Petition. 2. The attack against Ext. P5 centres round the following observations made by the Tribunal: "The question as to whether any further concurrence is necessary, when a concurrence is already obtained from the sister R.T.As. in respect of at least one application has not been considered by the R.T.A., Malappuram. Concurrence is really for the grant of a permit and not in relation to a particular application. in respect of at least one application has not been considered by the R.T.A., Malappuram. Concurrence is really for the grant of a permit and not in relation to a particular application. It appears that this is a case where all the three sister R.T.As. have granted concurrence to one permit along this route. If that is so, what the R.T.A., Malappuram has to do is to weigh the respective qualifications of the applicants before the R.T.A. and grant the eligible candidate one permit". 3. As the applications were filed under the old Act, learned counsel appearing for all the contesting parties submitted, that the applications could be considered and disposed of under the provisions of the old Act and not under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the new Act'). I proceed on the assumption, without deciding, that the applications can be disposed of under the old Act in view of the agreed stand of the contesting parties. The question is whether concurrence envisaged in R.203A relates to permit as totally distinguished from application. Answer to the said question would be sufficient to dispose of this Original Petition. 4. S.63 of the old Act (which corresponds to S.88 of the new Act) is regarding "validation of permits for use outside region in which granted". The provision says that "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 Regional Transport Authority of that other region ..........". It can be found, without much difficulty, that counter signature envisaged in the provision relates to permit. The question of counter signature would arise only after the Regional Transport Authority grants a permit. The words "unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region" are clear enough to hold that counter signature relates entirely to permit. It is R.203 of the Rules (corresponding to R.171 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - for short 'the new rules') which provides exception to S.63. Under the Rule, Regional transport Authority is empowered to grant permit which would be valid in an other region without counter signature. But the Regional Transport Authority which grants such permit is obliged to comply with two formalities before granting permit. Under the Rule, Regional transport Authority is empowered to grant permit which would be valid in an other region without counter signature. But the Regional Transport Authority which grants such permit is obliged to comply with two formalities before granting permit. The first is to obtain concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region concerned and the second is to notify the route under S.57(3) of the old Act. At the time of granting concurrence permit does not come into existence as concurrence has to precede the grant of permit. At the time of granting concurrence only the application remains. Whether under the old Act or under the new Act, Regional Transport Authority cannot grant a permit except on an application. Such an application, under the old Act, could either be one submitted suo motu or in response to invitation made by the Regional Transport Authority under S.57(3). the Regional Transport Authority is empowered under S.47(3) of the old Act to limit the number of such carriages generally or of any specified type on any specified route within the region. It may not be necessary to pass a formal order fixing the number of permits as required under S 47(3). If a Regional Transport Authority issues notification under S.57(3) inviting applications for a permit, an implied decision can be inferred regarding fixation of the limit as provided in S.47(3). It has been held by the Supreme Court in Gajendra Transport v. Anamallias Bus Transport ( AIR 1975 S.C. 386 ) that "where the Regional Transport Authority issues a notification under S.57(2) inviting applications for a permit for an additional bus on an existing route, it can reasonably be held that the R.T. A. has arrived at a decision as to the limit of the number of permits as required under S.47 (3) because it is not the form but the substance of the order that has to be considered". But is not imperative that the Regional Transport Authority should fix the number of stage carriages before granting permit. An application could be filed under the old Act even without invitation. Though it can generally be said that concurrence envisaged in R.203 A relates to a permit applied for, it cannot be said that the concurrence has nothing to do with application. An application could be filed under the old Act even without invitation. Though it can generally be said that concurrence envisaged in R.203 A relates to a permit applied for, it cannot be said that the concurrence has nothing to do with application. Regional Transport Authority seeking concurrence of the sister authority can make the request either on receipt of the application or before inviting applications Concurrence obtained cannot be delinked from application if the same has been sought for on the application. In other words, concurrence in such case is granted for the route applied for and hence the application cannot entirely be detached from concurrence in all instances. 5. In this case R.T.A, Malappuram decided to seek concurrence of the sister R.T. As. pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner. Concurrence could be granted or refused in respect of the permit on the route as applied for. Concurrence granted by the sister Regional Transport Authorities would therefore relate to the application submitted by the petitioner. Hence the observation of the Tribunal that concurrence is really for the grant of a permit "and not in relation to a particular application" is not a correct statement of law. The R.T.A., Malappuram has to dispose of the application of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 in the light of the observations made above. I, therefore, direct the R.T.A., Malappuram to dispose of those applications as expeditiously as possible in the light of the above observations. Original Petition is disposed of in the above terms.