Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to call for the records in F. No. TD/TP. 1/11/92 dated 4-3-1992 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and for any other appropriate order or direction. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that in spite of the fact that his permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam was directed to be renewed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, the 1st respondent, in spite of his repeated requests, did not make the necesssary endorsement of the said renewal in his stage carriage permit effecting the renewal from 4-1-1988 to 4-1-1993. According to the writ petitioner, his permit alone for the Inter-State route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry is covered by the Inter-State agreement for the portions lying within the limits of Union Territory of Pondicherry. But, suddenly, by proceedings dated 4-3-1992, the 1st respondent, purporting to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, in M.V. Appeal No. 1 of 1992, renewing his stage carriage permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, stated that the renewal is given subject to payment of tax to the Tamil Nadu Government, which, according to the petitioner, is totally unwarranted and illegal. 3. The case of the writ petitioner is, that he was operating a stage carriage permit on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, granted in reciprocal agreement between the Governments of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry, by which one stage carriage permit with single point tax payable in Pondicherry, was granted on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, by the Pondicherry Authority. He has been operating the same by paying tax in Pondicherry from 1974, and the said permit has been renewed by the Proceedings of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, in M.V. Appeal No. 1 of 1992. The renewed permit is continuation of the original permit and as such, after renewal, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit of single point tax payable in Pondicherry, which he has paid, and the same cannot be taken away suddenly by the 1st respondent. 4. Mr. The renewed permit is continuation of the original permit and as such, after renewal, the petitioner is entitled to the same benefit of single point tax payable in Pondicherry, which he has paid, and the same cannot be taken away suddenly by the 1st respondent. 4. Mr. K. Alagiriswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent, the benefits already enjoyed by the petitioner from 1974 by paying single point tax to Pondicherry is taken away and the petitioner has been called upon to pay tax in Tamil Nadu also without any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioner and consequently, he submits, that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay tax in Tamil Nadu also is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice and illegal. He further submits, that so far as the tax payable to Tamil Nadu is concerned, it is for the Tamil Nadu Government Transport Authority and not for the Pondicherry Transport Authority to direct. In this view of the matter also, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay tax in Tamil Nadu is illegal and totally without jurisdiction. The learned senior counsel then submits that in view of the illegal proceedings of the 1st respondent, the petitioner will be obliged to pay a heavy amount by way of tax in Tamil Nadu. This is the only stage carriage the petitioner is having and he will not be able to run the said stage carriage by paying tax in Tamil Nadu in pursuance of the illegal proceedings of the 1st respondent. Therefore, he prays that the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent should be quashed. 5. The petitioner has impleaded originally the State Transport Authorities, Pondicherry and Madras only as respondents 1 and 2. One N. Krishnaswami Chetty, proprietor of Vijayalakshmi Transport Service, Pondicherry, has filed W.M.P. No. 5584 of 1992 to implead himself as a party respondent in the writ petition. The said petition was ordered by consent on 7-7-1992 and he was impleaded as 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The 3rd respondent, who is the contesting respondent in this writ petition, has also filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The 1st respondent/State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, has also filed a detailed counter-affidavit supporting the case of the 3rd respondent. 6. Mr. The said petition was ordered by consent on 7-7-1992 and he was impleaded as 3rd respondent in the writ petition. The 3rd respondent, who is the contesting respondent in this writ petition, has also filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The 1st respondent/State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, has also filed a detailed counter-affidavit supporting the case of the 3rd respondent. 6. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent, submits that the 3rd respondent has been granted a stage carriage permit to ply on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, as included in the Inter-State agreement dated 19-4-1985 at serial No. 12, Part A of Appendix II of the said agreement, which grant became final. The petitioner was given the endorsement of renewal subject to payment of tax to Tamil Nadu State. The grant of permit in favour of the 3rd respondent for the route allotted in the agreement on single point tax was never challenged by the petitioner or by anybody else. Pursuant to the grant made, the permit of the 3rd respondent has also been counter signed by the 2nd respondent on 13-3-1992 on single point tax and the 3rd respondent is now running on the entirety of the route. Mr. R. Krishnamurthi further submits that inasmuch as there is only one vacancy under the Inter-State agreement for the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry and that vacancy having been filled by the grant of permit to the 3rd respondent, the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of single point tax for his renewal of permit, though called as such, but granted by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, on appeal and confirmed by this Court, only on the policy under the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, i.e., 'permit for all'. He also submits that the petitioner's earlier application for renewal became infructuous with the result that there was no renewal for the period from 4-1-1983 to 4-1-1988 and as such, no renewal of counter-signature. It is further argued that when the benefit of single point tax has already been given to the 3rd respondent and there being only one vacancy, the petitioner cannot seek to get such a benefit at the cost of the 3rd respondent. It is further argued that when the benefit of single point tax has already been given to the 3rd respondent and there being only one vacancy, the petitioner cannot seek to get such a benefit at the cost of the 3rd respondent. Further, the abovesaid permit being the quota allotted to Pondicherry State, it will be the exclusive right of Pondicherry Authority to state as to which among the operators should be given the benefit of counter-signature on single point tax. 7. I have also carefully considered the arguments of Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. Pleader for Pondicherry State at Madras, on behalf of the 1st respondent. 8. In my opinion, the argument of Mr. R. Krishnamurthi, learned senior counsel for the 3rd respondent, is well founded and merits acceptance. It is to be noticed that pursuant to the impugned order, the 2nd respondent has also granted the counter-signature to the 3rd respondent by his Proceedings in R. No. 138122/E2/91 dated 12-3-1992 in respect of his bus bearing registration No. TN-49-2715 and the 3rd respondent is running his bus on the entirety of the route in question since 13-3-1992 till date. Further, against the said proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 12-3-1992, the petitioner has filed R.P.No. 4 of 1992 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, and it is stated that the revision petition is still pending. As already stated, the attempt of the petitioner to project as if the impugned proceedings have been made under the provisions of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is wholly erroneous. Under the impugned proceedings, endorsement of renewal has been made only under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder and certainly not under the provisions of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. It is well settled that the grant or renewal of permit could be either within or outside the scope of Inter-State reciprocal agreement. The fact that the renewal has been granter earlier within the scope of Inter-State agreement will not mean that the renewal applicant would be automatically entitled to further renewal within the scope of the agreement. 9. It is well settled that the grant or renewal of permit could be either within or outside the scope of Inter-State reciprocal agreement. The fact that the renewal has been granter earlier within the scope of Inter-State agreement will not mean that the renewal applicant would be automatically entitled to further renewal within the scope of the agreement. 9. From the facts available on record, it is clear that the petitioner has missed the bus and allowed the grant made in favour of the 3rd respondent on single point tax within the scope of Inter-State agreement dated 19-4-1985, to become final and it is exactly for this reason the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, as well as this Court held that the grant in favour of the 3rd respondent could not be disturbed as the same was not challenged. There being only one route under the Inter-State agreement, another permit given to the petitioner by way of renewal should naturally be outside the scope of Inter State agreement and as such, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner is liable to pay the double tax. But, such a consequence of not granting renewal within the scope of Inter State agreement will not make the order granting renewal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as an order under the provisions of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Single point or double point taxation is only consequential pursuant to the order made under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, I am of the view, that the petitioner has clearly and undoubtedly has an alternative remedy to file a revision petition against the impugned proceedings before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, and this objection has also been raised by the 3rd respondent at the earliest stage even before the limitation period for filing such a revision was over. Therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. Therefore, on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. Pleader for Pondicherry State, also submits that the application was belatedly submitted by the petitioner after a delay of 92 days under the provisions of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and before the application was considered and decided by the 1st respondent, the petitioner has preferred W.P. No. 8284 of 1982 before this Court and the same was dismissed by order dated 30-4-1990 on the ground that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 11. Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. Pleader for Pondicherry State, further submits that there occurred a vacancy on the route from Cuddalore to Tindivanam via Pondicherry, which was covered by the Inter-State agreement between the Governments of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. In the meantime, the 3rd respondent filed an application for the grant of permit in the said route on 10-12-1990 with the allegation that the petitioner was not operating his vehicle after the dismissal of the writ petition and also alleging that the petitioner was not providing satisfactory service to the public. Before his application was taken up for consideration by the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 11163 of 1991 before this Court and this Court by order dated 9-8-1991, directed the 1st respondent herein to consider the application and pass orders on merits within eight weeks. The 1st respondent by proceedings dated 16-12-1991 granted the permit to the 3rd respondent in the resultant vacancy that has arisen for the reasons stated therein, and the 3rd respondent was allowed to ply his vehicle on the single point tax. The Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Pondicherry, has communicated the decision of the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent with a recommendation for grant of counter signature to the 3rd respondent on single point tax. 12. At this stage, the petitioner has filed M. V. Appeal No. 1 of 1992 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, and the Tribunal passed an order for renewal of permit of the petitioner to ply the bus PYT 1588 in the existing timings on the said route and also stated that the 3rd respondent can operate his vehicle in the opposite direction. Inasmuch as the grant of permit by the 1st respondent has been directed not to be disturbed by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry and this Court also declined to interfere with the grant of permit, Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. Pleader for Pondicherry submits, that it would not be possible for the 1st respondent to make any alteration either in the proceedings or in the recommendation made. Having regard to the fact that the permit granted to the petitioner is allowed to be renewed only from 1988 after taking into consideration the policy under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 13. The writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent had also filed W.Ps. Nos. 72 and 1488 of 1992 and 722 and 811 of 1992 respectively and K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J., has passed a common order on 10-2-1992 with directions to respondents 1 and 2 herein. The 1st respondent has already complied with all the directions of the said order of this Court. As the petitioner had failed to establish that he is entitled for single point tax before this Court in the above writ petition, this Court also declined to interfere with the grant of permit with single point tax to the 3rd respondent. 14. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent. On 12-3-1992, permit was also granted to the petitioner who received it without any demur, according to Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. Pleader for Pondicherry. He further submits that whenever any permit application is filed before the 1st respondent for any Inter-State route not covered by any bilateral agreement between the Union Territory of Pondicherry and the neighbouring State, the 1st respondent used to grant permit subject to the counter-signature by the authority of the other State and subject to the payment of any tax payable in this regard to the other State for operating the bus in their State since such type of permits fall under double point tax. This argument of Mr. K. S. Ahamed appears to be well founded. The stipulation regarding payment of tax to the other State is merely a recommendation of the primary authority and the other State authority has got their discretionary power either to consider for the counter-signature of permit subject to payment of tax in their State or reject it as the case may be. K. S. Ahamed appears to be well founded. The stipulation regarding payment of tax to the other State is merely a recommendation of the primary authority and the other State authority has got their discretionary power either to consider for the counter-signature of permit subject to payment of tax in their State or reject it as the case may be. He also states that in similar grant of permits, the other State Transport Authorities used to stipulate the condition "subject to payment of tax due to other State". Therefore, according to Mr. K. S. Ahamed, learned Govt. pleader for Pondicherry State, the impugned proceeding is not illegal or violative of the principles of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Rules made thereunder. He prays that the writ petition may be dismissed. 15. I have carefully gone through the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28-10-1991 to consider the grant of stage carriage permit on the Inter-State route Cuddalore to Tindivanam - item No. 12 applied by the 3rd respondent, and also the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 28-10-1991 regarding Item No. 13 applied by the petitioner herein. It is clearly seen from the order dated 28-10-1991 regarding Item No. 12, that the application for the Inter-State route Cuddalore to Tindivanam has been made by the 3rd respondent on 10-12-1990 when the original operator/writ petitioner had not operated his vehicle PYT 1588 from 1-10-1990 to 28-2-1991. When W.P. No. 8284 of 1982 filed by the petitioner herein was dismissed by this Court on 30-4-1990 as having become infructuous, a vacancy has arisen in the Inter-State route Cuddalore to Tindivanam, included in the Inter-State agreement dated 19-4-1985 as Serial No. 12, Part A, Appendix II. It is stated in the said order that as the request of the petitioner herein is disallowed by the said authority, the State Transport Authority decided to allot the vacancy of the route thus created to the 3rd respondent herein in the interest of travelling public and to maintain continuity of service. It is stated in the said order that as the request of the petitioner herein is disallowed by the said authority, the State Transport Authority decided to allot the vacancy of the route thus created to the 3rd respondent herein in the interest of travelling public and to maintain continuity of service. It is relevant to extract the last paragraph of the said order: "After careful consideration of the application of Thiru N. Krishnasamy Chetty (the only applicant for this route), the S.T.A. decides to grant a regular stage carriage permit for a period of five years from the date of issue, subject to grant of counter-signature of permit against the said vacant route by the S.T.A., Tamil Nadu, on single point tax. He is directed to produce valid records of the Vehicle in respect of this idle bus TN-49/2715 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 16. Likewise, the 1st respondent has also held that by rejection of the belated application for renewal, the permit lapses with effect from 4-1-1983 and as such, when the permit itself was non-existent with effect from 4-1-1983, the State Transport Authority feels that it is not possible to renew the permit in favour of the petitioner. The State Transport Authority further proceeds to state as follows:- "Even otherwise, on merits also, the applicant has failed to produce financier's N.O.C. in respect of the vehicle covered under the permit for which renewal is sought, as required by S. 51(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The applicant has also paid tax with penalty which also affects adversely his performance as a satisfactory operator. Hence, the S.T.A. decides to reject the application dated 3-9-1987 for renewal of permit for the period from 4-1-1988 to 3-1-1993, as the permit had lapsed earlier consequent upon the rejection of the earlier application of renewal from 4-1-1983. The applicant who is now operating his vehicle on temporary permit valid up to 12-2-1992 is hereby directed to stop operating his vehicle plying on the route Cuddalore to Tindivanam immediately after the receipt of this order." 17. It is also useful to refer to the proceedings of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, dated 14-1-1992 in M.V. Appeal No. l of 1992 filed by the petitioner herein. It is also useful to refer to the proceedings of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry, dated 14-1-1992 in M.V. Appeal No. l of 1992 filed by the petitioner herein. It is an appeal under S. 89(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order of the 1st respondent passed in the meeting dated 28-10-1991 in Item No. 13. The Tribunal has held as follows:- "Therefore, taking into consideration the extenuating circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the order passed by the State Transport Authority is modified. In view of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the conditions for the grant of permit is very much liberalised and, therefore, there is no bar for considering the renewal application of the appellant by this Tribunal. I, therefore, order for the renewal of the permit of the appellant to ply the bus PYT 1588 in the existing timings on the route Cuddalore-Tindivanam Via Pondicherry. The State Transport Authority grantee Thiru Krishnasamy can operate his bus in the opposite direction. The Secretary of the State Transport Authority is accordingly directed to renew the permit of the appellant on his payment of penalty of Rs. 1, 000/- (Rupees one thousand only) or by suspending his bus for two days for the late payment of tax as it may deem fit. In this context, I would like to point out that the permit granted to Krishnasamy Chetty cannot be disturbed because the said grant of permit has not been challenged in this appeal and that the application for impleading him as a necessary party in this appeal was dismissed by the High Court of Madras on the ground that the matter of granting permit to N. Krishnasamy Chetty is a separate issue and, therefore, by this appeal, the permit granted to N. Krishnasamy Chetty to operate his bus is not affected. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly." 18. The appeal is partly allowed accordingly." 18. It is seen from the above order that the permit granted to the 3rd respondent was not disturbed because, the said grant of permit had not been challenged in the said appeal and that the application for impleading him as a necessary party in the said appeal was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the matter of granting permit to Krishnaswami Chetty is a separate issue and, therefore, the permit granted to Krishnaswami Chetty to operate his bus is not affected by the decision dated 14-1-1992 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. I have already referred to the order of K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J., in W.P. Nos. 72, 722, 811 and 1488 of 1992 dated 10-2-1992 in paragraphs supra. I do not propose to repeat the findings of the learned Judge once over again. 19. In my opinion, the vacancy in the Inter State agreement for the route in question stood allotted to the 3rd respondent by the grant of fresh permit to him, which is evident from the proceedings of the meeting of the 1st respondent dated 28-10-1991 and referred to above. The said proceedings granting permit to the 3rd respondent on single point tax in the vacancy arising under the Inter-State agreement was not challenged by the petitioner or by anybody else and the same has become final and irrevocable as has been held by the 1st respondent as well as by this Court in the common order dated 10-2-1992 made in W.P. Nos. 72, 722, 811 and 1488 of 1992. In such circumstances, though called renewal, the grant in favour of the petitioner has been made by the 1st respondent and confirmed by this Court in the judgement dated 10-2-1992 referred to above, only on the basis of the policy "permit for all" underlying the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A permit can be granted or renewed dehors the inter-State agreement. The petitioner's permit has been renewed de hors the Inter-State agreement and the petitioner having not challenged the grant of permit in favour of the 3rd respondent in the vacancy arising under the Inter-State agreement cannot now claim any right to have his renewal under the agreement on the ground that he was earlier enjoying certain benefits. The petitioner's permit has been renewed de hors the Inter-State agreement and the petitioner having not challenged the grant of permit in favour of the 3rd respondent in the vacancy arising under the Inter-State agreement cannot now claim any right to have his renewal under the agreement on the ground that he was earlier enjoying certain benefits. This is my firm and considered view on the dispute raised by the parties to the present proceedings. 20. Pursuant to the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent has granted counter-signature of the permit of the 3rd respondent on single point tax by his proceedings dated 12-3-1992, against which the petitioner has also filed R.P. No. 4 of 1992 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, which is said to be pending. Inasmuch as the benefit of single point or the liability to pay double tax arises out of an order granting or renewing the permit within or outside the purview of the agreement, any order in this behalf either way cannot be construed as an order under the provisions of the Pondicherry Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Therefore, I hold, that the impugned order renewing the permit of the petitioner outside the purview of the agreement is one made under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and as such is certainly revisable if not appealable. Inasmuch as the petitioner has not availed of this alternative remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also. 21. No other point was argued by either party to the proceedings. Under these circumstances, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.