Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner applied for grant of a regular permit to operate his vehicle on the route Guruvayur- Edappal. The route is an inter-district route traversing the districts of Malappuram and Thrissur. Major portion of the route lies within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, which is the primary authority. 2. Petitioner offered ready vehicle KL.10/D 1023 at the time of submitting his application and requested to grant regular permit, subject to counter signature from the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. Ext. P1 is the application dated 18.8.1998 submitted by the petitioner along with a covering letter detailing the necessity of the service proposed, which was addressed to the second respondent. Petitioner then received Ext. P2 a copy of the communication sent by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, requesting him to obtain and forward the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur for the portion falls within jurisdiction of that Regional Transport Authority for the grant of regular permit. 3. Petitioner is alleged by the said communication of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. Main contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that Secretary Regional Transport Authority is only an executive officer as stipulated in R.122 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, and he has no jurisdiction to make a request to the Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur for concurrence. According to counsel, it is only the Regional Transport Authority who can seek concurrence and not the Secretary, who is a delegated authority. Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. If the permit sought for is to be valid in other districts, the Regional Transport Authority, the primary authority, has to obtain concurrence/ counter signature from the sister authorities. 4. S.88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 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, 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 Regional Transport Authority concerned. However, Regional Transport Authority has got power to grant regular permit for other regions without counter-signature, but in which case the Regional Transport Authority has to obtain concurrence from sister authorities. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to R.171 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules which is extracted below for easy reference: "171. Grant of regular permit for other regions without countersignature.- (1) The Regional Transport Authority of any one region may, subject to the provisions of S.72 of the Act, grant a permit, other than a permit referred to in R.170 to be valid in any other region or regions in this State without the counter signature of the Regional Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authorities of the other region or regions concerned and shall, as soon as possible, send a copy of the proceedings relating to the issue of such permit to the State Transport Authority. (2) The Regional Transport Authority granting a stage carriage permit under sub-r.(1) shall before granting the permit obtain the concurrence of the Regional Transport Authority, or Regional Transport Authorities, of the other region or regions concerned. (3) The provisions of sub-r.(2) shall apply also in the case of variation of the conditions of a stage carriage permit either by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area in any other region or regions, or the exclusion of any such route or routes or area." As far as S.88(1) of the Act is concerned, it uses the expression "except as may be otherwise prescribed" which would take in R.171 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Reading S.88(1) of the Act read with R.171 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, only Regional Transport Authority has got the power to grant regular permit valid for other regions without countersignature. However, that authority has to obtain the concurrence of Regional Transport Authority of other region or regions. The same question came up for consideration before this Court in Parameswaran Nair v. R.T.O., Thrissur, 1990 (2) KLT 812 and this Court took the same view. 5. Regional Transport Officer is the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, and is an executive officer. R.133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules enumerates the powers the Secretary could exercise when it is delegated by the Regional Transport Authority by general or special resolution. 5. Regional Transport Officer is the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, and is an executive officer. R.133 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules enumerates the powers the Secretary could exercise when it is delegated by the Regional Transport Authority by general or special resolution. Powers under S.88(1) of the Act or R.171 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules have not been delegated to the Secretary, by the Regional Transport Authority, and therefore, he has no jurisdiction to get concurrence from the sister Regional Transport Authority, which is a function to be performed by the primary authority that is the Regional Transport Authority. Only in the case of temporary permit issued under S.88(7) of the Act power is delegated to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, under R.131(1)(m) and not in the case of a regular permit. In the instant case, we are concerned with regular permit for which the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, has no jurisdiction to seek concurrence of the sister authorities, a function which is statutorily to be performed by the Primary authority, Regional Transport Authority. 6. In the above mentioned circumstances, Ext. P2 is without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext. P1 application in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. O.P. is allowed as above.