JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — In all the above noted writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the grievance of the petitioner is one and the same. Each of them is the owner of goods carriage vehicle and is the holder of permanent goods carriage permit in relation to his vehicle. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, all the above writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, we, therefore, simply refer to the facts in OJC No. 6526 of 2000. 2. The petitioner is the owner of goods carriage vehicle bearing registration number OR-05-4127. He is the holder of permanent goods carriage permit bearing No. 641/94-95 which was issued by the State Transport Authority, Orissa (opposite party No. 1) with counter-signature permit granted by the State Trans¬port Authority, Andhra Pradesh (Annexure-1). It was valid up to 24.3.2000. Before expiry of the primary permit, the petition¬er applied for its renewal on 8.3.2000. Pending grant of renewal of primary permit, he also applied to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Orissa on 27.3.2000 to recommend for counter-signature of the primary permit by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh as per the prevailing procedure. The Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack renewed the permanent permit on 30.5.2000 for a further period of five years from the date of expiry, i.e. up to 24.3.2005 (vide Annexure-4). After the primary permit was renewed by the renewal granting authority (Regional Transport Authority, Cuttack), the petitioner again applied on 8.6.2000 along with all necessary documents including the renewed permit requesting for formal recommendation for grant of counter-signature permit by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh. On 26.6.2000, the Under-Secretary of the State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack, informed the petitioner (vide Annexure-7) that as no permit under Sec. 3(31) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been granted to the petitioner, no renewal under Sec. 81 of the Act can be considered. The petitioner assails the validity of the aforesaid decision contained in Annexure-7. We may note here that in other connected cases, the State Transport Authority has informed the concerned petitioner on different dates that under the Act it has no power/jurisdiction to renew recommendation letter as applied for. Such decisions communicated by the State Transport Authority are the subject-matter of challenge in those cases. 3. We may note here that in other connected cases, the State Transport Authority has informed the concerned petitioner on different dates that under the Act it has no power/jurisdiction to renew recommendation letter as applied for. Such decisions communicated by the State Transport Authority are the subject-matter of challenge in those cases. 3. We have heard Shri Sahoo for the petitioner in O.J.C. No. 6526 of 2000 and Shri G.P.Mohanty for other petitioners and Shri Panda, learned Standing Counsel for the department. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Trans¬port Authorities, it has been contended that as the petitioners intend to ply their vehicles in the State of Andhra Pradesh which is not allowed in their permits, the applications made by them requesting for formal recommendation for grant of counter-signature permits by the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh amounts to inclusion of a new area in their permits and for such variation of the conditions of the permits, they are required to apply for grant of fresh permits under Sec. 80 (3) of the Act. In their additional counter affidavit, the Transport Authorities have stated that under Rule 41 (1)(a)(iii) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, the Secretary or the Chairman of the State Transport Authority are authorities to grant permits to be valid in other States. They have also power to counter-claim the permits of other States with whom the State of Orissa has reciprocal arrangement but not to grant permit to be valid in other State. 5. Counsel for the petitioners contended that the prayer made by them to the Transport Authorities has not been properly appreciated. They contended that the petitioners have not asked for issuance of permanent permits in their favour inasmuch as they have all got the same by way of renewal from the competent authority. Their limited prayer made to the Transport Authorities is that their applications should be forwarded to their counter-part, i.e. the State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh for counter-signature of the permits. Shri Panda, learned Standing Counsel for the department submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners in their applications to the Transport Authorities cannot be acceded to for the reasons stated in the counter affidavit filed in the case. 6. In view of such rival contentions, it is necessary for us to examine the different provisions of the Act. Shri Panda, learned Standing Counsel for the department submitted that the prayer made by the petitioners in their applications to the Transport Authorities cannot be acceded to for the reasons stated in the counter affidavit filed in the case. 6. In view of such rival contentions, it is necessary for us to examine the different provisions of the Act. Section 2 (31) of the Act defines ‘permit’ to mean a permit issued by the State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a motor vehicle as transport vehicle. Section 79 of the Act deals with grant of goods carriage permit. It provides that a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under Sec. 77, grant a goods carriage permit to be valid throughout the State. Section 80 lays down the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Section 88 with which we are primarily concerned deals with validation of permits for use outside region in which the same was granted. Proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 88 states that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 for the grant of counter-signature of permits, where the permits granted in any one State are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement between the States. 7. Admittedly the petitioners hold permanent permits under Sec. 79 of the Act to ply their vehicles in the State of Orissa. Merely because they seek counter-signature of the authorities of Andhra Pradesh on their permits, it does not mean that they seek grant of fresh permits for the purpose of plying their vehicles in the neighbouring States. For plying of the vehicles in the neighbouring States, what is necessary is the countersignature of permits by the corresponding Transport Authorities of other States which is to be done as per the agreement arrived at between the States after complying with the requirements of Sub-section (5) of Section 88. There is no dispute that the Transport Authorities of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh got a reciprocal agree¬ment between themselves as per the resolution taken in their conference held on 23rd and 24th of March, 1960. There is no dispute that the Transport Authorities of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh got a reciprocal agree¬ment between themselves as per the resolution taken in their conference held on 23rd and 24th of March, 1960. The relevant portion of the proceeding is quoted hereunder : “PROCEEDING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORISSA FOR FINALISING A RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO STATES HELD ON 23rd. AND 24th MARCH, 1960 AT CUTTACK. Present : (1) Sri B. Sivaraman, I.C.S., Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack, (2) Sri Syed Ali, IAS, Transport Commissioner and Chairman, Andhra Pradesh, (3) Sri P. N. Sahu, B. Sc. OAS (I),, Secretary, State Transport Authority, Orissa, (4) Sri N. Veera Swamy, B.A., B.I., Assistant Secretary, State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh. xx xx xx xx Item No. 6 :....................... ........ All these applications for counter-signature shall be forwarded through the State Transport Authorities of the State in which the vehicle has the primary permit. A public carrier shall not pick up and set down inter-State goods at places within the territory of the counter-signing Authority. xx xx xx xx" As per the above decision, the State Transport Authority, Orissa is the forwarding authority of the petitioners’ applications to its counter-part in Andhra Pradesh for counter-signature of their primary permits. 8. The contesting Transport Authorities rely on Sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act to resist the claim of the petitioners. The said provision [Section 80 (3)] deals with a different situation. It lays down that if the applicant seeks to vary the conditions of any permit by including a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, such application made by him shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. The present is not a case coming under Sub-section (3) of Section 80. It is true that the vehicles of the petitioners after obtaining counter-signature from State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh can ply in Andhra Pradesh but such situation is taken care of by the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 88 which clearly lays down that it is not necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80. It is true that the vehicles of the petitioners after obtaining counter-signature from State Transport Authority, Andhra Pradesh can ply in Andhra Pradesh but such situation is taken care of by the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 88 which clearly lays down that it is not necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80. This is, therefore, not a case of inclusion of any new route or new area or altering of a route or area as envisaged under Sub-section (3) of Section 80. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties erred in not sending recommendation to their counter-parts in Andhra Pradesh for counter-signature of the primary permits of the petitioners. Reference made to Rule 41 of the Motor Vehicles Rules in the additional counter affidavit has no relevancy for deciding the points involved in these cases. 10. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned decisions are hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to recommend forthwith the applications of the petitioners for counter-signature by the State Transport Authori¬ty, Andhra Pradesh. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Petitions allowed.