Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. In view of the hearing/disposal of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition and the observations in this judgment, technically, though no relief could be granted in favour of the proposed-impleading respondents, we allow both the implead-petitions, i.e. in W.A.M.P.No.186 of 2007 in Writ Appeal No.2032 of 2002 and W.P.M.P.No.721 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.32985 of 2002, and implead K.Dhandapani as second respondent in the Writ Appeal and fourth respondent in the Writ Petition. 2. As common question of law is involved and as the contesting respondent(s) is common, both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The appellant/writ petitioner, namely Union of India, represented by Union Territory of Pondicherry, represented by State Transport Authority, Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as the State Transport Authority), vide Circular/notice dated 17. 1987, invited applications for the route Pondicherry-Tiruvannamalai, pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Old Act) (for short, the M.V. Act), dated 16. 1985. Applications including the application preferred by respondent No.1-N.Krishnasamy Chetty (since deceased), were received and the same were notified under Section 57(3) of the M.V. Act (old Act) for inviting objections. Out of 43 applicants, the State Transport Authority accepted and granted permit in favour of N.Masthan (second respondent in Writ Petition) and rejected rest of 42 applications. By proceedings dated 110. 1987, permit for the said route Pondicherry-Tiruvannamalai was granted in favour of the said Masthan (second respondent in W.P.No.32985 of 2002) for a period of three years from 11. 1987 to 310. 1990. Against the aforesaid decision of the State Transport Authority, dated 110. 1987, the respondent No.1-N.Krishnasamy Chetty (since deceased) preferred appeal under Section 64(1)(a) of the M.V. Act (Old Act) and prayed to set aside the proceedings dated 110. 1987. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, the STAT), Pondicherry, by judgment dated 212. 1992 in M.V.A.No.9 of 1988, while has not chosen to interfere with the proceedings of the State Transport Authority dated 110. 1987 and confirmed the same, directed the State Transport Authority, to grant the route-permit in favour of the respondent No.1-N.Krishnasamy Chetty. The aforesaid judgment dated 212. 1992 was not acted for about ten years. 1992 in M.V.A.No.9 of 1988, while has not chosen to interfere with the proceedings of the State Transport Authority dated 110. 1987 and confirmed the same, directed the State Transport Authority, to grant the route-permit in favour of the respondent No.1-N.Krishnasamy Chetty. The aforesaid judgment dated 212. 1992 was not acted for about ten years. After about ten years, the respondent No.1-N.Krishnasamy Chetty preferred Writ Petition No.9340 of 2002, for implementation of the aforesaid judgment of the STAT, dated 212. 1992 and to grant the Inter-State permit in favour of the said N.Krishnasamy Chetty. The learned single Judge, by the impugned order dated 30.4.2002 in Writ Petition No.9340 of 2002, having observed "..... when the order of the Tribunal has been passed against the respondent Government after hearing them. If the Government feel aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the remedy is well open to the Government to agitate the matter. Without doing so, when the person, who got favourable order from the Tribunal, approaches this Court for issuance of mandamus to implement the order of the appellate Tribunal, the stand of the Government as taken up in this case is not appreciable," allowed the Writ Petition and directed the State Transport Authority to implement the aforesaid judgment of the STAT dated 212. 1992. In view of such order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant-State Transport Authority, while preferring the present Writ Appeal against the said order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.9340 of 2002, has filed a separate Writ Petition in W.P.No.32985 of 2002, challenging the judgment of the STAT, dated 212. 1992 in M.V.A.No.9 of 1988. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Transport Authority submitted that the route in question being an Inter State Route, an agreement was reached between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry, wherein, it was decided to grant the permit to only single applicant for the route in question. In this background, out of 43 applicants, only one permit was issued, i.e. to the second respondent-N.Masthan, who was the most deserving candidate. While the STAT has not chosen to interfere with the order dated 110. 1987 granting permit in favour of the said N.Masthan and confirmed the said proceedings of the State Transport Authority, dated 110. In this background, out of 43 applicants, only one permit was issued, i.e. to the second respondent-N.Masthan, who was the most deserving candidate. While the STAT has not chosen to interfere with the order dated 110. 1987 granting permit in favour of the said N.Masthan and confirmed the said proceedings of the State Transport Authority, dated 110. 1987, the STAT also directed to grant additional permit in favour of the first respondent herein, namely N.Krishnasamy Chetty, which will amount to grant of two permits for the very same route in question and the same will also be against the Inter-State Agreement. No such additional permit can be granted without any agreement with the other State, i.e. the State of Tamil Nadu. Learned counsel appearing for the State Transport Authority placed reliance on Sub-Section (5) to Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (New Act), which reads as follows : 88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted: ..... (5) Every proposal to enter into an agreement between the States 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 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 representations 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." Learned counsel appearing for the State Transport Authority also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Ashwani Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority", reported in 1999 (8) SCC 364 , wherein the Supreme Court held that existence of Inter-State permits depends upon the reciprocal agreement between the States covered by the route. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent-N.Krishnasamy Chetty, while accepting the proposition of law as was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the State Transport Authority, also agrees that the only one permit should have been granted pursuant to the agreement reached between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. 7. Having noticed the fact that only one permit can be issued for the route in question as per the existing reciprocal agreement reached between the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry, no "second permit" could be granted for the very same route in question, the agreement having a statutory force, and in view of Section 88(5) of the M.V. Act (quoted above), the additional permit, if granted, the same would result in frustration of the object sought to be achieved by the provisions of the M.V. Act. 8. We accordingly set aside the judgment dated 212. 1992 passed by the STAT in M.V.A.No.9 of 1988 and consequently, we also set aside the impugned order dated 30.4.2002 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.9340 of 2002. 9. Both the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal stand allowed with the aforesaid observations, but in the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.