Judgment Banerjee, J. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.11.92 passed by the learned trial Judge. By the said order the learned trial Judge disposed of the writ application by directing the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal to dispose of the application for grant of temporary stage carriage permit in respect of the approved route in terms of reciprocal agreement in accordance with the law after giving the petitioner opportunity of being heard. The route in question in short is from Burdwan to Tata. The grievance of the appellant was that the since the application for grant of temporary stage carriage permit in respect of the route from Burdwan to Tata had not been considered by the State Transport Authority, the appellant moved this Court by filing a writ application on 6th April, 1992, where-upon this Court directed the authorities concerned to dispose of the said application for grant of temporary permit in accordance with law after giving the writ petitioner opportunity of being heard. But according into the appellant, pursuant to the said order the authorities heard the appellant but grant the temporary permit on the route-Tata to Burdwan via-Baukura to Purulia and not on the route Burdwan to Tata-via-Sonamukhi, Beliatore, Bankura and Bandwan. Starting point of the route is Bankura and the destination is Tata. If a bus is to ply from Burdwan to Tata-via-Durgapur Barrage, Raghunathpur and Purulia in that event the distance would be 300 k.m. whereas if the bus plies from Burdwan to Tata-via-Bankura, Bandwan, the distance would be 249 k.m. The route Bankura-Bandwan is a shorter route and practically a straight route whereas the other route is longer and in a zigzag course. The State Transport Authority's case is that Tata-via-Durgapur Barrage', Bankura, Raghunathpur, Purulia within 300 k.m. was the approved route under a reciprocal agreement to the State of Bihar whereas the other route was not the approved one by the State of Bihar. Accordingly, the main grievance of the appellant is that the State Transport Authority should be directed to grant permit on the shorter route via-Sonamukhi; Beliatore, Bankura and Bandwan. 2. Mr. Accordingly, the main grievance of the appellant is that the State Transport Authority should be directed to grant permit on the shorter route via-Sonamukhi; Beliatore, Bankura and Bandwan. 2. Mr. M.B. Sarkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that earlier the State Transport Authority had granted a permit on the route from Burdwan to Tata via-Sonamukhi, Beliatore, Bankura and Bandwan which was duly counter-signed by the State Transport Authority, Bihar and accordingly that should be taken to be an approved route. The time-table on that route was also approved by the State of Bihar. Since it is an inter-state route and under the provision of Section 88(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, it provides that "on inter-state route if the permit is granted by the State Transport Authority of one state, the same was required to be counter-signed by the State Transport of other state and for the purpose under Section 88(5) there should be an agreement between the State to fix the number of permits which was proposed to be granted or counter signed in respect of each route or area and the same should be published in the official gazette. As a matter of fact, there was an agreement between the State of Bihar and the West Bengal for granting of permit on several routes including the route Burdwan to Tata via-Durgapur, Purulia out of which 162 k.m. falls within the State of West Bengal and 48 k.m. falls within the State of Bihar and the total distance between Burdwan to Tata is 210 k.m. and the number of permits should be granted by the State of Bihar and by the State of West Bengal by one each as because earlier permit was granted and duly counter-signed by the State Transport Authority in respect of shorter route. Notice was issued to be served upon the State of Bihar. 3. Mr. N. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the State Transport Authority, Bihar said that the State of Bihar has no objection in granting permit on the shorter mute and further stated that only one bus plies in the said route which was issued by the State of West Bengal but the Bihar State Transport Authority has not yet granted any permit on the approved route. Apart from the State Transport Authority another party contested the matter, being respondent No. 4, Zafar Alam Ansary. His case is that he was a permanent permit holder on the route Bankura to Burdwan via-Sonamukhi, Patrasayar (Express Service) and that if the appellant is allowed to ply the vehicle on the shorter route, that would adversely affect his interest as the appellant would then be plying the vehicle on a part of his route. This respondent No. 4 was an added party by the order of the learned trial judge and he was allowed to contest the matter. Mr. Moloy Kumar Bose, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, stated that the respondent No. 4 had locus standi to contest this matter inasmuch as if the permit is granted on a part of his route in that event respondent No. 4's interest would be affected. It was submitted that the appellant could not be allowed to ply on the shorter route as the shorter route was not the approved route. The learned trial Judge on hearing the parties directed to grant temporary stage carriage permit on the route which was stated to be approved route. 4. It is not in dispute that on earlier occasion temporary permit was granted to the appellant on the shorter route which was duly counter-signed by the State Transport Authority, Bihar and the, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bihar authorities stated that the Bihar authorities has no objection with regard to grant of permit on the shorter route the agreement contemplated under Section 88(5) of the said Act was for the purpose of fixing the number of permits on which it is proposed to be granted or counter-signed in respect of each route or area. In this case the application is for a temporary stage carriage permit. Section 88(7) of the Act it provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a Regional Transport of one region may issue a temporary permit under Section 87 to be valid in another region or State with the concurrence; given general or for 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". Accordingly, the agreement as contemplated under Section 80(5) it does not and cannot stand in the way of granting of temporary permit where the temporary permit can be granted by one transport authority with the concurrence given generally or for particular occasion of the state transport authority of the other state Accordingly, in the instant case, when the Bihar Authorities have no objection in that event there is no baron the part of the stage transport authority to grant such temporary permit and send to the Bihar Authorities for giving its formal concurrence. In case permanent permit is required to be given on this route in that event in view of the stand taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state transport authority, Bihar such permit could be granted by the State Transport of West Bengal subject to formal concurrence given by the Bihar authorities. The purpose of entering into an agreement between the two states was for the purpose of fixing the number of permits that may be granted on such route and for reserving the rights of each State to grant particular number of permit or permits to be issued by that authority which would be counter-signed by the other authorities. As the agreement does not and cannot stand in the way of granting temporary permit in view of the provisions of Section 88(7) of the said Act, the Transport authorities are directed to grant temporary permit from Burdwan to Tata via-Sonamukhi, Beliatore, Bankura and Bandwan and send it for concurrence from the respondent No. 3. So far as the permanent permit is concerned let a proposal be immediately send by the State Transport Authority for the purpose of deviation of the route or area to the respondent No. 3 for his approval, and if the same is approved by the respondent No. 3 in that event the State Transport Authority, West Bengal should act accordingly, and dispose of the matter granting permanent permit in accordance with law. It may be mentioned that under the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is very little scope for refusing to grant permit as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 443 . It may be mentioned that under the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 there is very little scope for refusing to grant permit as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of (1) Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 443 . Under Section 72 and other provisions of the Act, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority cannot grant any permit in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. So it appears that it is the choice of the applicant in respect of the route or area, from this, it is made clear that there is no scope for opening up a route or declaring a route by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as pre-condition for making application for stage carriage permit. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of the agreement as contemplated under Section 88(5) of the said Act was to fix the number of permits arid in the instant case instead of a longer route application was made for a shorter route though the starting point and the destination are the same. Accordingly the order of the learned trial Judge dated 11th November, 1992 is modified to the extent that the grant of temporary stage carriage permit should be on the shorter route Burdwan to Tata via-Sonamukhi, Beliatore, Bankura and Baudwan and not the approved route in terms of the reciprocal agreement. 5. The appeal is, thus, allowed to the extent stated above. There will be no order as to costs. Let a xerox copy of this judgment be given to the learned Advocates for the parties on usual terms and condition. Chakraborty, J.: I agree.