JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner was a permanent permit holder for the period upto 1991 for an interstate route from Calcutta to batagram alternatively called Batagaon. The major portion of the route is in West Bengal i.e. from Calcutta to Sonakonia comprising of eleven stops and two other stops Jaleswar and Batagaon are in Orissa. 2. BEFORE the expiry of the permit in 1991 the petitioner made an application for renewal and the West Bengal S. T. A. granted such renewal which is valid till 1996. However, the countersignature of the transport authorities of Orissa have not yet came. The point, therefore, arises whether in these circumstances the law permits the petitioner to operate in the West Bengal part of the route i. e. Calcutta-Sonakonia which the petitioners have been doing until the respondents sought to create obstruction. 3. IT is true that in the normal course of events a part of a route is not route itself and the operator must operate between the two' termini of the route. The operator cannot cut the route at bis own choice. 4. HOWEVER, in an interstate permit two transport authorities are concerned. If one of the authorities grants the permit for its region then section 88 provides that the said permit shall not be valid in the region of the other State or of the other R. T. A. Section 88 does not provides that in case of non-granting of permit in the: other portion or in case of no counter signature being obtained by the other transport authorities, the permit shall be entirely invalid. If that were the intention of the Legislature, then section 88 would have provided so. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has also relied, in my opinion correctly, upon the apposite case of H. C. Narayanappa which is a Division Bench judgment of the Mysore High Court reported in AIR 1968 Mysore page 266. He placed Head Note (S) and paragraph 17 of the judgment. That was a case of a route covering areas in two States, namely, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. It was said that even if the Andhra Pradesh Transport Authorities do not put their countersignature the same would not have the effect of keeping; the permit already signed by the Mysore Authorities in abeyance. 5. ON the above basis and at this prima facie stage, it appears to me after hearing Mr. It was said that even if the Andhra Pradesh Transport Authorities do not put their countersignature the same would not have the effect of keeping; the permit already signed by the Mysore Authorities in abeyance. 5. ON the above basis and at this prima facie stage, it appears to me after hearing Mr. Rameswar Bhattacherjee for the respondents who has stressed the truncated nature of the route now operated upon, that the petitioner does have a good right to continue to operate between Calcutta to Sonakonia. It would be unfair not to allow the petitioner to operate unless his permit granted in West Bengal is shown by the authorities to be totally invalid. 6. THE above is my prima facie view upon which I grant the interim orders mentioned below. Since the respondents have appeared, no Rule need be formally drawn up or served. Opposition within four weeks from the date hereof, reply, if any, within two weeks thereafter and the matter will appear for final hearing the following working day. Until the disposal of the writ or until further orders of Court there shall be interim orders in terms of prayers (f) and (g) of the petition. If the respondents have seized any document or any property or the vehicle of the petitioners on the basis of the petitioners operating from Calcutta to Sonakonia, then seizure is immediately to be discontinued and what has been seized must be returned to the petitioners within one week of the service of a copy order upon the respondents or their concerned officers. Parties and all other concerned will act first upon a signed copy of the operative portion and then upon a copy of this dictated order upon the usual undertaking. Interim order passed.