Honble CHOPRA, J.—This special appeal under s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 8.2.1993 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 780 of 1993, whereby the learned single Judge has held that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in Sahib Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (1) decided on August 28, 1992 the Regional Transport Authority can grant permit even in the cases where the limit has been fixed by the inter-state agreement. The only requirement of the law is that after the grant of the permit, counter-signatures of the concerned Regional Transport Authority of the inter-state route is necessary to be obtained. Thus, considering that the case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Sahib Rams case (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. (2) Detailed arguments were advanced at the stage of the admission of the writ petition. (3) The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh entered into a mutual inter-state agreement whereby the petitioners route Chambal Dam to Ratangarh has been included in that agreement in the Schedule at S. No. 66 and the scope fixed for the said route is 4: 1. This agreement (Annexure-P.1) has been published in the Rajasthan Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated May 6, 1975. (4) Clause 11(c) of the Agreement reads as under; — "The number of daily single trips and number of permits shall be strictly as fixed under the agreement and will not exceed under any circumstances. All such permits shall be got duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the case may be in other State." The scope of the route has been saturated and hence, as per the provisions of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no permit can be granted on the petitioners inter-statal route i.e. Ratangarh to Chambal Dam extended upto Begun. (5) It has been contended that as per the decision in Sahib Rams case (supra), the limit fixed under the agreement does not create a bar for the grant of a permit on the inter-statal route provided it is counter-signed by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of the concerned region of the another State. However, a contrary view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jhamaklal Balmukund vs. The Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gwalior (2) that no permit can be countersigned over and above the agreement when there is a clear ban on issuance of the permit in excess of the permits except as agreed to between the two States and, therefore, the grant of permit by the R.T.A, Udaipur Region, Udaipur or for that matter, the State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh and their counter-signatures by the concerned authorities of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan beyond the limit of the scope fixed under the clause 11(c) of the Agreement is contrary to law and agreement and so, such a increase in the scope cannot be sustained. It was, therefore, claimed that the respondents be restrained from granting or counter-signing any permit either temporary or non-temporary on the petitioners route Ratangarh to Chambal Dam extended upto Begun over and above the scope fixed under the agreement. (6) We have heard Mr. Ram Raj Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have carefully gone through the record of the case. (7) The preamble of the Agreement Annexure-P.l reads as under: — "Whereas in view of the contiguity of the State of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and considerable scope existing for development of the inter-state traffic between the two States, it is considered expedient in public interest to enter into a reciprocal transport agreement between the two States. Now, therefore, the Governors of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan hereby agree to implement terms and conditions of the agreement set out herein below: This agreement shall be valid till as a new agreement between the two States is arrived at or the existing one is rescinded after issue of six months notice on either side. Now, therefore, the Governors of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan hereby agree to implement terms and conditions of the agreement set out herein below: This agreement shall be valid till as a new agreement between the two States is arrived at or the existing one is rescinded after issue of six months notice on either side. The number and routes of inter-statal permits agreed to in respect of a stage carriages, public carriages, private careers, contract carriages and temporary permits in accordance with this agreement may be reviewed periodically at the instance of either State. The agreement shall come into force with effect from 3.4.1975, as from the date of coming into force of this agreement all previous agreements in the matter of road transport between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan shall stand superseded." Clause (1) of the Agreement deals with taxation and it lays down that there shall be single point Motor Vehicle Tax in respect of all classes of vehicles covered by substantive permits within the agreed quota and countersigned by the other State. Clause (3) of the Agreement which deals with Public/Private Carriers (substantive permits) lays down that it is agreed that the permits for a total of 190 public carriers and 10 private carriers belonging to each State shall be countersigned by the Transport Authorities of the other State on the recommendation of the State/Regional/Transport Authority concerned. Such counter-signatures shall be granted for two direct routes by the shortest distance not touching the border point. Clause (ll-(a)) provides that the Reciprocal arrangements in regard to the operation of stage carriages on inter-state routes between Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan shall be according to the details contained in Appendix-A. Thus, the routes with distances and scopes have been provided in Appendix-A. The clause (11-c) of the Agreement lays down that the number of daily single trips and number of permits shall be strictly as fixed under the agreement and will not exceed in any circumstances. All such permits shall be got duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the case may be in other State. (8) Mr. All such permits shall be got duly countersigned by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority concerned as the case may be in other State. (8) Mr. R.R. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has frankly conceded that as per the decision of this Court in Sahib Ramss case (supra) which pertained to the inter-state route of Rajasthan and Haryana States, if the limit is fixed as regards the vehicles or the number of trips to be undertaken then of course, the permits that are granted within that limit then they have to be countersigned by the other State as per the provisions of the Agreement. It was contended by Mr. Vyas that the learned Judges of the Division Bench were wrong in holding that the formality of the counter-signatures has not been dispensed with on account of the agreement. Actually, as per the terms of the agreement, the formality of the counter-signatures has not been dispensed with. According to Mr. Vyas, while Interpreting the provisions of the law with reference to the aforesaid Rajasthan-Haryana route, in Sahib Rams case (supra), the learned Judges of the Division Bench have come to the conclusion thai if the scope has been fixed under the agreement then also the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority is not restrained from issuing fresh permits over and above the scope fixed but what is required is that before a person operates on that route beyond the limit fixed, he will have to obtain counter-signatures of the RTA or STA concerned of the other State and if that is not done, the grant of permit will not be against the provisions of the law. (9) Mr. Vyas has, therefore, tried to canvass before us that if by the agreement, any limit has been fixed or a ceiling has been fixed, as per the decision of Sahib Rams case (supra), the RTA or the STA have been left free to grant permits over and above that limit provided certain formalities are complied with keeping in view the liberalised policy of grant of permits as contained in ss. 80 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (10) It was, however, contended by Mr. 80 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (10) It was, however, contended by Mr. Vyas that Sahib Rams case (supra) does not cover the cases of grant of inter-statal permits, which are regulated by the agreement arrived at between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh because that agreement contains a prohibitory clause i.e. clause (ll-(c)), which has been quoted above in extenso and in view of that prohibitory clause, which has been interpreted by two different Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s. Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra ) & M.P.S.R.T. Corpn. vs. Nirmal Kumar (3), the interdict contained in clause (11-C) prohibits the grant of any further permit beyond the limits fixed in the agreement as regards the routes which are covered by the agreement i.e. the routes which are mentioned in Appendix-A attached to the agreement. (11) Now, this has to be seen whether this contention can be sustained. Of course, the learned single Judge has held that this case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Sahib Rams case (supra) and, therefore, mere fixing of the ceiling will not disentitle the concerned RTA or the STA to grant temporary as well as non-temporary permits on the routes which are covered by the agreement Ex. P.1 entered into between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh. (12) Mr. R.R. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn our attention to M.P. S.R.T. Corpn.s case (supra) wherein a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that it can be logically supposed, therefore, that when jurisdiction is exercised by the concerned authority to grant a permit under an agreement, that can only be done in strict conformity with the requirements of the agreement in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of s. 63(3-A) of the Old Motor Vehicles Act as respects, in particular, the route otherwise the permit shall not be legally valid. Indeed any deviation in respect of any of provisions of the agreement based on reciprocity would make permit granted thereunder ultra vires the agreement. Indeed any deviation in respect of any of provisions of the agreement based on reciprocity would make permit granted thereunder ultra vires the agreement. The learned Judges have further observed that even if it be assumed that the agreement has statutory force the effect of the agreement could not be ignored and its scope could not be enlarged to confer jurisdiction on the Appellate Tribunal Jaipur to grant a permit for a route not contemplated under the agreement. It was also observed that be it noted in this connection that the provisions of countersignature in case of an inter- State permit envisaged under s. 63(1) of the old Motor Vehicles Act is mandatory and non-fulfilment of that requirement renders the permit invalid and useless because the legislature has itself made an exception to the provision in the three provisos of the said section, only in the prescribed circumstances. However, in para 12 of the Judgment, the learned Judges have observed that where a permit for inter-State Route between State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh was granted on a direction issued by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, the High Court of M.P. after observing that although such grant of permit was without jurisdiction as not contemplated under the reciprocal agreement between the two States and although almost the whole of the route except 8 Kilometers was in State of M.P., however held that the grant of permit need not be quashed but the counter- signatures; made on such grant of permit by the State of M.P. shall be quashed in view of fact that State Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan were not served or represented in the writ petition. Thus, the learned Judges of the Division Bench did not cancel the permit and held it to be ultravires of the agreement and not ultravires of the law. The counter-signatures appended to the impugned permit under the orders of the STAT, Rajasthan were quashed. Probably, this decision which rendered the grant of such a permit ultra vires of the agreement and not ultra vires of the law was not noticed by the learned Judges who decided M/s. Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra). (13) In Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra), 99 routes were agreed to be governed by the inter-statal agreement between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh. (13) In Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra), 99 routes were agreed to be governed by the inter-statal agreement between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The route Rawatbhata to Neemuch was not an agreed route and, therefore, it was contended that the grant of permit and the countersignatures on that permit by the Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh Transport Authorities respectively was without jurisdiction and illegal and no temporary permit beyond the scope can be granted over and above the scope which has been fixed by the agreement. Thus, it was a case of grant of temporary permit and not a non-temporary permit on a route not forming part of a inter-statal route. (14) In Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra), it was contended that the reciprocal agreement between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan has clearly determined the scope of the State carriage permits to be issued by the respective States on the routes specified in the agreement and, therefore, there being a general concurrence pertaining to the scope of the route, no additional permit, even by way of issuance of temporary permit, could be granted to any of the operators in respect of any route which is not covered by the reciprocal transport agreement or in excess of the number of trips and vehicles as specified in the reciprocal agreement in respect of the routes about which there is an agreement between the two States. Thus, two-fold argument was advanced before the learned Judges of the Division Bench firstly that the scope fixed by the inter-statal agreement about the routes mentioned in Schedule-A cannot be transgressed by any State and secondly no permit can be granted on other routes which are not covered by the inter-statal agreement because it will render the provisions of sub-ss. (1), (2) and (3) of s. 63 of the Act as nugatory or otiose. Such a submission cannot be countenanced in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sahib Rams case (supra). (15) While relying on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hazi Abdul Hafiz Khan vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (4), it was argued that the permit in question being in excess of the ceiling fixed in the reciprocal agreement, the issuance of any permit in excess of the ceiling limit would be illegal. (15) While relying on a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hazi Abdul Hafiz Khan vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (4), it was argued that the permit in question being in excess of the ceiling fixed in the reciprocal agreement, the issuance of any permit in excess of the ceiling limit would be illegal. As stated above, according to Sahib Rams case (supra), such an argument cannot be countenanced. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra) did argue before the M.P. High Court that existence of a reciprocal agreement is no bar to the grant of a temporary permit on an inter-state route and in this connection, reliance has been placed on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Goverdhanlal Dhawan vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (5). Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Nasiruddin vs. State Transport Authority, Delhi Administration and others (6). Both these authorities have been noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sahib Rams case (supra). The only question that survived for consideration of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid case of Jhamaklal Balmukund (supra) was whether a temporary permit on inter-state route can be granted in excess of the quota fixed by the reciprocal agreement by the two States or on any route which is not covered by the reciprocal agreement. In Goverdhanlals case (supra), their lordships of the Supreme Court have observed that in the absence of any Rules to the contrary framed under the Act, a permit granted by one Regional Transport Authority of one region is not valid in any other region unless the permit has been countersigned by the Transport Authority of other region and a permit granted in any one State is not valid in any other State unless it is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of other State or of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. While countersigning the permit, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority of the other region to impose its own conditions which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit. However, if any Rules are framed by the State Govt. While countersigning the permit, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority of the other region to impose its own conditions which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit. However, if any Rules are framed by the State Govt. under the Act, such Rules shall supersede the provisions of s. 63 of the Act and the Rules framed in that regard had to be followed by the Transport Authorities in the case of inter-regional permits. (16) Dealing with existence of reciprocal agreement, their lordships of the Supreme Court in para 5 of the judgment in Goverdhanlals case (supra) have observed: — "If there is an agreement between the State concerned with regard to the grant and the counter-signatures of the permits, then it is not necessary to comply with the procedure prescribed by s. 57 of the Act for counter-signature of permits. %he powers and functions is to allow these inter-state authorities to exercise their power within their respective sphares in regard to grant and countersignature of permits by agreement and an accord." It was also held that in the absence of any such Rules being there for inter-regional agreement, it is open to the affected parties to raise the contention that there is no necessity to issue any additional inter-regional permit before the Regional Transport Authority to which application for grant of permit is made as well as the Regional Transport Authority to which an application for counter-signature of the permit is made. As in that case, there was no provision in the Act or in the Rules made by the State Govt. requiring the existence of such a prior agreement, the Court held that the Regional Transport Authorities are free to issue interregional permit and the permits shall be valid if countersigned on the inter-regional route, but if it is not countersigned then it will be valid only in the region of the RTA who has issued the inter-regional permit. (17) So far as Nasiruddins case (supra) is concerned, it has been observed by the Delhi High Court that there is nothing either in s. 63(3) or the proviso thereto which can be read as meaning that once there is an agreement under the proviso to s. 63(3), then s. 63(3) ceases to apply even to the issue of inter- state permits and counter-signatures thereon beyond the agreed number of permits. It cannot be said that the proviso to s. 63(3) would be made nugatory if the application for counter-signatures on inter-state permits is directed to be considered under the substantive part of s. 63(3). For the application of proviso is exhausted when the number of permits as agreed in the agreement between the two States is dealt with. The agreement does not extend beyond that number and, therefore, cannot be a bar to the consideration of the countersignatures of another inter-state permit beyond the agreed number under a totally different provisions, namely, the substantive part of s. 63(3). According to the Delhi High Court, if any matter is not covered by the agreement, then the route or the number of permits fixed by the reciprocal agreement cannot be a bar to the issuance of permits which are not covered by the agreement. In the case which was before the Delhi High Court, the number of vehicles on the inter-state route was fixed by the reciprocal agreement and that number was increased. The increase was challenged on the ground of the existence of reciprocal agreement. In those circumstances, the Delhi High Court has held that as there is no bar in the inter-state agreement for issuance of permits in excess of the reciprocal agreement, the Transport Authorities were competent to issue permits and countersign them in excess of the number fixed by the reciprocal agreement in exercise of their powers under s. 63(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. However, the M.P. High Court in M/s Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra) while taking note of sub-clause (c) of clause 11 of the agreement, took the view that the number of daily single trips and number of permits shall be strictly in accordance with the reciprocal agreement and these permits have to be countersigned by the concerned State Transport Authority of the other State i.e. other than the Transport Authority of the State which issued the permit. In the agreement, there is a clear interdict imposed upon the issuance of permits in excess of the number of permits agreed under wry circumstances. This is evident from the portion underlined in the relevant clause of the agreement, while says that the number of permits and the number of daily single trips will not exceed under any circumstances. In the agreement, there is a clear interdict imposed upon the issuance of permits in excess of the number of permits agreed under wry circumstances. This is evident from the portion underlined in the relevant clause of the agreement, while says that the number of permits and the number of daily single trips will not exceed under any circumstances. Air such, the bar contained in the agreement is binding on the Transport Authorities of both the States. (17) It was further claimed that in Nasiruddins case (supra), the Delhi High Court observed that the Transport Authorities shall be free to issue permits over and above the limit fixed by the Transport Agreement in absence of any bar contained in the agreement to issue permits in excess of those permits or routes which are covered by the agreement. But, in the instant case, there is a clear bar to the issuance of permits in excess of the prescribed limits and on any other route except agreed to between the two States under any other circumstances. It was further observed that in view of the interdict imposed upon the issuance of permits on routes other than the routes agreed between the two States, no permit in excess of the number of permits fixed for the operators of each State can be granted by the Transport Authorities of any of the contracting States as they have no power to issue any additional permit. (18) In para 13 of the judgment in Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra), the learned Judges have further observed as under:- "To conclude, we hold that the Transport Authorities of the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh are not free in the matter of issuance and countersignatures of permits in excess of the number of permits and single trips fixed by the reciprocal agreement between the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh and they are also not free to issue permits on any other route than the routes which have been specified in the reciprocal agreement between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan published in the Gazette dated 3.4.1975." Thus, the learned Judges of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jhamaklals case (supra) have upheld both the contentions i.e. firstly, no permit can be granted on the routes which are not covered by the inter-statal agreement and on the routes which are covered by the inter-state agreements, the ceiling fixed cannot be violated and no permit can be granted beyond that scope. We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. R.R. Vyas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, which is supported by Jhamaklal Balmukunds case (supra). In our considered view, this will render the provisions of sub-ss. (1), (1-A) and (3) of s. 63 of the old Motor Vehicles Act redundant and otios. (19) S. 63(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. This is an enabling provision which provides that interstate permits can be granted by the State Transport Authority of the one State on the routes which are inter-statal but the permit holders will have to get those permits countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of the other State before they operate their vehicles on a portion of the route which falls in another State. This is a general provision to which three provisos have been provided. We need not discuss those three provisos as they are not relevant to the case on hand. This is a general provision to which three provisos have been provided. We need not discuss those three provisos as they are not relevant to the case on hand. (20) Sub-s. (1-A) of s. 63 of the Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1), a permit granted or countersigned by a State Transport Authority shall be valid in the whole State or in such regions within the State as may be specified in the permit. Sub-s. (1-A) of s. 63 of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause that Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1). Sub-s. (1) of s. 63 of the Act provides that except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the RTA of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the RTA of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the RTA concerned. Thus, whether it is a inter-state route or an inter-regional route, if a permit has been granted by a Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, that permit shall be valid in any other State only when it is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or the RTA concerned. Sub-s. (3) of s. 63 of the Act provides that the provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits. Thus, the provisions relating to the grant of permit will equally be applicable to the counter-signatures. Sub-s. (3) of s. 63 of the Act provides that the provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits. Thus, the provisions relating to the grant of permit will equally be applicable to the counter-signatures. A proviso has been added to sub-s. (3) of s. 63 of the Act, which says that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in s. 57 for the grant of countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements of sub- s. (3-A), or for the grant of countersignatures of permits in pursuance of any direction issued by the Commission under clause (c) of sub-s. (2) of s. 63-A. Thus, the inter-statal agreements which are covered by sub-ss. (3-A) and (3-B) of s. 63 of the Act, if they have been arrived at between the two States, then for counter-signatures, the procedure laid down in s. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (s. 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) will not be necessary to be followed. Sub-ss. (3-A) and (3-B) of s. 63 of the Act, if they have been arrived at between the two States, then for counter-signatures, the procedure laid down in s. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (s. 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) will not be necessary to be followed. Sub-ss. (3-A) and (3-B) of s. 63 of the Act read as under :- "(3-A) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States referred to in the proviso to sub-s. (3) and every proposal in such agreement to fix the number of permits which is proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area shall be published by each of the State Governments concerned in the Official Gazette together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted, and the date, not being less than thirty days from the date of such publication, on which, and the authority by which and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representations received in connection therewith will be considered : — Provided that no person, association or authority, other than those mentioned hereunder shall have a right to make such representation, namely: — (i) any person already providing passenger or goods transport facilities by any means in the proposed area or along or near the proposed route; (ii) any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Govt.; (iii) any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any. part of the proposed area or route lies. (3-B) Every agreement arrived at between the States shall in so far as it relates to the grant of countersignatures of permits, be published in the Official Gazette by each of the States concerned and the State Transport Authority of the State and the Regional Transport Authority concerned shall give effect to it." The provisions of sub-ss. (3-A) and (3-B) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Acts, 1939 are totally analogous to sub-ss. (3) and (6) of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 except that in sub-ss. (3-A) and (3-B) of S. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Acts, 1939 are totally analogous to sub-ss. (3) and (6) of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 except that in sub-ss. (3-A) and (3-B) of s. 63 of the Act it has been provided that the proposed agreement or the agreement that has been arrived at between the States is to be published in Official Gazette but according to s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the proposed agreement or the agreement that has been entered into between the two States is to be published in the Official Gazette of each of the States and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement. Except this deviation as regards the publication of agreement in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement, the language of both provisions is identical. (21) Sub-s. (3-A) of s. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provides that every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States referred to in the proviso to sub-s. (3) and every proposal in such agreement to fix the number of permits which are proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area shall be published by each of the State Govts. concerned in the Official Gazette together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of such publication on which and the authority by which and the time and place at which, the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. Sub-s. (5) of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is analogous to sub-s. (3-A) of s. 63 of the Act also provides that every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States to fix the number of permits which are proposed to be granted or counter-signed in respect of each route or area shall be published by each of the State Govts. concerned in the Official Gazette and in any one or more of the newspapers in regional language circulating in the area or route proposed to be covered by the agreement together with a notice of the date before which representation in connection therewith may be submitted and the date not being less than thirty days from the date of publication in the Official Gazette on which and the authority by which and the time and place at which the proposal and any representation received in connection therewith will be considered. Thus, the only requirement is to publish a portion of the agreement so far as it relates to the fixing of a ceiling or to the grant on the countersignatures of permits as per sub-s. (3-B) of s. 63 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act (equivalent to sub-s. (6) of s. 88 of the New Motor Vehicles Act) and not more than that. The law only provides for publication of that part of the agreement which relates to the proposal to enter into an inter-state agreement providing for fixing of a ceiling on the number of permits to be granted or countersigned. No prohibition has been made for grant of permits over and above that ceiling fixed under normal provisions of law because no agreement can over ride the provisions of law. These permits are not granted under any agreement. They are neither granted nor countersigned under the normal provisions of law. Any agreement whether between the private parties or between the two States has to conform to the legal provisions but that agreement cannot override the provisions of law and make them redundant or otios. (22) Be that as it may, even in M.P.S.R.T. Corpns case (supra), it has been held that the grant of permit beyond the scope fixed in the inter-state agreement will be violative of the terms of the agreement. It has not been held that it will be violative of the legal provisions. In Sahib Rams case (supra) the learned Judges of the Division Bench of this Court had considered not only the aforesaid authorities of their lordships of the Supreme Court and of Delhi High Court but they also noticed the authority of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India (7), wherein it has been held that the scheme envisaged under ss. 47 and 57 of the Old Act has been completely done away with by the Act and the right of existing operators to file objections and the provision to impose limit on the number of permits have been taken away. There is no similar provision to that of s. 47 and s. 57 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act under the New Act of 1988. The statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act shows that the purpose of bringing the Act was to liberalise the grant of permits. This is what has been contained in s. 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides that the RTA shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act. It can only refuse according to the provisos to s. 80(2) of the Act, which provide that the RTA may summarily refuse the application if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application would have the effect of increasing the number of stage carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of sub-s. (3) of s. 71 or of contract carriages as fixed and specified in a notification in the Official Gazette under clause (a) of Sub-s. (3) of S. 74. Sec. 74 (3) (a) as also S.71 (3) (a) are almost in perimateria with each other and they provide that the State Govt. shall, if so directed by the Central Govt. having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, by notification in the Official Gazette direct a State Transport Authority and a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of contract carriages generally or of any specified type, as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lakhs. These provisions are not applicable so far as this case is concerned. These provisions are not applicable so far as this case is concerned. What is necessary according to the terms of the inter-statal agreement is that ihe routes and the number of trips have to be specified in the inter-statal agreement and it is true that the State Transport Authority or the RTA is bound to give effect to those terms of the agreement but that does not prohibit them from entertaining the application over and above that ceiling, whether prohibitory clause exists or does not exist, to consider those applications according to the provisions of sub-ss. (1), (1-A), (3) and (3-A) of s. 63 of the Old Act (sub-ss. (1), (2),(4),(5) and (6) of s. 88 of the New Act). If the routes and the return trips have been fixed in the inter-statal agreement and the ceiling has also been published then for obtaining such permits or counter-signatures on such permits granted by one State, the other State is required or obliged to counter-sign such permits and the formality of counter-signature is not dispensed with as held by this Court in Sahib Rams case (supra). The law provides that the authorities of the other State i.e. RTA or the STA of the other State will have to counter-sign those permits as per the terms of the agreement and they will be chargeable to single point motor vehicle Tax but if any application is made over and above that ceiling then as held in Sahib Rams case (supra), such applications can be considered as per the provisions of sub-ss. (1), (2) and (4) of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, corresponding provisions of which in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are sub-ss. (1), (1-A) and (3) of s. 63 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act. (1), (2) and (4) of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, corresponding provisions of which in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are sub-ss. (1), (1-A) and (3) of s. 63 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act. Of course, as per the provisions of s. 63(3) of the Old Motor Vehicles Act, in grant of such permits, formalities as required by s. 57 will have to be undergone but as per the provisions of New Motor Vehicles Act, formalities required by s. 80 of the New Act will have to be undergone and the holder of a permit granted by one RTA or the STA of one State as regards inter-statal route cannot operate his vehicles beyond the jurisdiction of that RTA or the STA unless that permit is counter- signed by the RTA or the STA of that other State and in doing so, that authority can put any conditions, it may like and it may even refuse to counter-sign those permits and in that event, as per the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and (2) of s. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or as per the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and (1-A) of the Old Motor Vehicles Act, those permits will be valid only within that State or within that region and not beyond that. Merely because a prohibitory clause has been inserted in the inter-statal agreement that no such permits will be granted, that does not change the character of the legal provisions and their effect. (23) The law only provides for fixing of ceiling and if as held in Sahib Rams case (supra), as also Nasiruddins case (supra), that ceiling can be exceeded then the grant of such a permit by any RTA or the STA on inter-statal route will not render that permit invalid. Of course, till then permit is counter-signed, the Operator will not be allowed to operate his vehicle on the route which fall in the another region or another State till counter-signatures are obtained and those counter-signatures can be refused and while counter-signing, certain conditions can be put on the permit holder seeking counter signatures but that does not mean that that agreement disentitles the authorities to issue any permit beyond the scope because if that interpretation is taken, it will be contrary to the provisions of sub-ss. (1) and (3) of s. 63 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act (sub-ss. (1) and (4) of s. 88 of the New Motor Vehicles Act). At the same time, it will render the provisions of Sub-s. (1-A) of S. 63 of the Old Motor Vehicles Act and S.88 (2) of the New Motor Vehicles Act totally nugatory. Thus, in our considered opinion, Sahib Rams case (supra), correctly lays down the law on the point that even if the ceiling is fixed, that does not disentitle the RTA or the STA to grant permits on inter-statal routes beyond the ceiling limit fixed in the agreement even if there is a prohibitory clause because in those cases, the permits are not sought or granted or countersigned under the inter-statal agreement but under the general provisions of law with all conditions attached thereto. No prohibitory clause incorporated in an inter-statal agreement can override the powers which are available to the RTA or the State Transport Authority under the Act. If it is accepted that such an interdict can prohibit the authorities from issuing any permit beyond the ceiling fixed in the agreement, it will render the provisions of law which permits or authorises them to act under the provisions of the Act and the Rules otios and redundant. No such interpretation of the provisions of law is possible by which mutual agreements can render provisions of law to be redundant. (24) Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case as also the discussion made hereinabove, we are firmly of the view that the Judgment of the learned single Judge is correct and does not need any interference by this Court. (25) In the result, this appeal has no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily.