Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). A further prayer has been made seeking declaration that petitioners' permits for Begun to Rawatbhata route are saved by virtue of Clause-4 of reciprocal transport agreement between the State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Petitioners state that they were holding non-temporary stage carriage permit of inter-state route Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli from the year 1977. In the year 1975, reciprocal agreement was made between State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh pursuant to Section 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Old Act'). In the said reciprocal agreement, two routes were existing namely Chittorgarh to Bhensaroadgarh via Singoli and Bhilwara to Bhensaroadgarh via Singoli. In the year 1976, State of Rajasthan approved and implemented scheme of nationalization due to which the route Chittorgarh to Bhensaroadgarh was curtailed on its portion from Chittorgarh to Balwant Nagar. It is stated that residuary route remained from Balwant Nagar to Bhensaroadgarh and from Bhilwara to Bhensaroadgarh. It is contended by the petitioners that on 27.9.1977 a route namely Begun to Rawatbhata came into existence taking note of two residuary routes after curtailment. The curtailment/extension of the route was endorsed in the respective permit of the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners started holding permit for Begun to Rawatbhata route from the year 1977. The permits were renewed on six different occasions. In the year 1989, Old Act was replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the New Act'). The new Act saved all the permits granted and renewed under the Old Act. After coming into the operation of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'), the petitioners continued to operate on Begun to Rawatbhata route. In the year 2001, State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh again entered into an agreement which became effective since 26.7.2001. In the aforesaid agreement, it was agreed by both the States that stage carriage permits counter-signed by either State prior to agreement shall be valid till their validity. In the year 2001, State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh again entered into an agreement which became effective since 26.7.2001. In the aforesaid agreement, it was agreed by both the States that stage carriage permits counter-signed by either State prior to agreement shall be valid till their validity. In the aforesaid agreement, Begun to Rawatbhata route was mentioned in Annexure-B showing it to be notified route whereas this route was not notified for nationalization under the Act of 1988 granting monopoly to the State Transport Undertakings, thus a representation was made and realizing the mistake, supplementary reciprocal agreement was made and published on 17.7.2003 in the State of Rajasthan and in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 24.12.2003. The route in dispute was added in Annexure-A1. In view of the revised reciprocal transport agreement between the two states, the Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh considered the application for grant of route in dispute wherein according to the petitioners, ten vacancies were filled up by the existing permit holders. The R.T.O. granted five non-temporary stage carriage permits for remaining five vacancies. Aggrieved by the grant of five new permits, one Radheyshyam Teli filed an appeal challenging resolution dated 19.9.2003. Five permit holders were arrayed as party respondents in the said appeal. Similar appeals were filed by others also. Those appeals were allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.12.2005. In the aforesaid order, a direction was also given against the petitioners beyond the prayer made in the appeal and thereby without there being a challenge of the petitioners' permit, a direction was given against them. The order was challenged by the petitioners before this Court, which set aside the order vide judgment dated 3.12.2008. The case was remanded back to Tribunal for its decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing. 3. The order of the Tribunal was further challenged by the new permit holders. Petitioners state that out of five new permit holders, Abdul Rashid and others approached the High Court, but their writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2007 followed by appeal and dismissal thereupon on 5.11.2007. An SLP was also preferred by them without any success. The petitioners herein also preferred SLP directly against the judgment of Single Bench as well as of Division Bench though they were not party therein. Those SLPs were decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.3.2007. An SLP was also preferred by them without any success. The petitioners herein also preferred SLP directly against the judgment of Single Bench as well as of Division Bench though they were not party therein. Those SLPs were decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 28.3.2007. The Hon'ble Apex Court gave liberty to the petitioners to raise all their objections before the appropriate forum and with that observation leave sought by the petitioners was not entertained. Since the writ petition of the petitioners was pending against the order of the Tribunal, thus they raised their objections therein and ultimately said writ petition was allowed on 3.12.2008 remanding the case to the Tribunal. 4. It is alleged that on remand Tribunal proceeded with the matter without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without hearing the parties who were before the High Court in the remand order and ultimately the Tribunal decided the matter vide impugned order. In between another writ petition was filed by the petitioners and others challenging the proceedings before the Tribunal which writ petition was then decided vide order dated 31.3.2009 with a direction that Tribunal will decide the issue as to whether appeal is maintainable or not and as to whether any relief can be granted against the petitioners. The judgment of the High Court dated 31.3.2009 was not taken note of by the Tribunal as it closed the proceedings a day before i.e. on 30.3.2009. it is also stated that on 25.3.2009 original appellant-Radheyshyam Teli submitted application seeking withdrawn (sic for withdrawal) of the appeal but the said application was thereafter dismissed and ultimately the impugned judgment was passed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Tribunal can entertain an appeal as per Section 89 of the Act of 1988. The aforesaid provision of the Act of 1988 does not provide an appeal against the grant of permits to others. Thus, according to learned counsel for petitioners, appeal before the Tribunal was not even maintainable in the hands of respondents No. 3 & 4 herein. It is also alleged that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 31.3.2009 suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Thus, according to learned counsel for petitioners, appeal before the Tribunal was not even maintainable in the hands of respondents No. 3 & 4 herein. It is also alleged that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 31.3.2009 suffers from non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were not given proper opportunity of hearing and otherwise judgment of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3097/2009 was not taken note of though impugned order shown to be dated 31.3.2009 was not delivered prior to 9.4.2009. 6. Coming info the merits of the case; learned counsel for petitioners submits that supplementary reciprocal agreement was notified by the State of Rajasthan on 17.7.2003 and it is thereupon that applications were considered for grant of permits by the RTO, Chittorgarh. Referring to the notification dated 17.7.2003 more specifically Clause-2, it has been shown that Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli route was saved and the aforesaid route was shown in Annexure-A1 to the notification and by virtue of issuance of notification, the petitioners' permits were renewed, thus respondent Nos. 3 & 4 had no right to challenge the grant of permits contrary to the notification dated 17.7.2003. The petitioners supported his arguments by referring judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnudutt & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2006(1) WLC (SC) Civil 244 : 2006 1 AD (SC) 145. It is also urged that judgment of seat at Jodhpur in the case of Nisar Ahmed (supra) has no application in the matter as in the SLP preferred by the petitioners, they were given liberty to raise their objections before the appropriate forum and it is not only for that reason, writ petition preferred by the petitioners against the original order dated 15.12.2005 was allowed vide the judgment dated 3.12.2008, thus subsequent judgment of this High Court supersedes the judgment earlier rendered by the High Court seat at Jodhpur more so when the judgment dated 3.12.2008 has taken note of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP preferred by the petitioners. The prayer of the petitioners is thus to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and grant relief as prayed. 7. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 seems to be the main contesting respondent now, who was filed short reply to the writ petition. The prayer of the petitioners is thus to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and grant relief as prayed. 7. On the other hand, respondent No. 4 seems to be the main contesting respondent now, who was filed short reply to the writ petition. The main contention of the respondent No. 4 is that Begun to Rawatbhata route was not existing under the reciprocal agreement between the two States prior to year 2003, thus even if permits were existing with the petitioners, then it was contrary to the provisions of the Old Act and even the Act of 1988. Referring to the reciprocal agreement of the year 1975, it has been clarified that Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli route was not existing in the reciprocal agreement. The aforesaid route was added for the first time in the year 2003. A reference of the judgment of this Court by seat at Jodhpur in the case of Nisar Ahmed vs. State of Rajasthan decided on 23.10.2007 has been given to show that issue raised in this writ petition has already been decided. Appeal preferred before Division Bench was also dismissed. In SLP before the Hon'ble Apex Court, so far as the SLP preferred by the new permit holders is concerned, it was dismissed and so far as the SLP preferred by the present petitioners is concerned, leave was denied but observations were made giving opportunity to the petitioners to raise their objections. 8. Reply has been filed by the respondent No. 3 also, but he has literally supported the petitioners. 9. Respondent No. 2 has also filed the reply largely supporting the proceedings taken by the Tribunal, thus effort of respondent No. 2 is largely to support the proceedings of respondent No. 1 and otherwise they have added that Begun to Rawatbhata route was a new route opened in the year 2003. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 2 has given reply contrary to what was replied in the earlier litigation supporting the petitioners. 10. Both the counsel urged that the petitioners were given proper opportunity of hearing, however, they failed to avail the said opportunity inasmuch as despite of time granted, arguments were not made, thus it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners. 10. Both the counsel urged that the petitioners were given proper opportunity of hearing, however, they failed to avail the said opportunity inasmuch as despite of time granted, arguments were not made, thus it cannot be said that opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioners. It is further stated that so far as Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli route is concerned, it was not existing prior to supplementary reciprocal agreement between the two States. In the year 1975, the two routes were Chittorgarh-Bhensaroadgarh via Balwant Nagar and Bhilwara to Bhensaroadgarh via Balwant Nagar. The then Regional Transport Authority unilaterally created so-called Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli route by curtailing Balwant Nagar to Bhensaroadgarh via Singoli in its region, thus opening of Begun to Rawatbhata route was not valid. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar & Anr. vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner and Anr. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3888 = RLW 2001(1) SC 1, it is urged that as per the provisions of Section 88, if there exists no reciprocal agreement between two States, the R.T.A. is not empowered to open inter-state route without following the procedure. Referring to Para 6 of the aforesaid judgment, it is submitted that sub-section (5) of Section 88 provides that a 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 Government concerned in their official gazette and publications have to be made in newspapers also. It was held that existence of the route is a condition precedent under sub-section (5) of Section 88 of the Act. Inter-state routes under the Scheme have to be reciprocal and cannot be unilateral, created by one State or any authority in the State. Definition of 'route' as provided under Section 2(38) was also referred. It is submitted that earlier agreement of the year 1975 was providing a different route than (the one) granted in the year 1977 by R.T.A., Udaipur and even if, the said route was granted to the petitioner, it was not under the reciprocal agreement. A reference of the judgment delivered in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior vs. Nirmal Kumar Chordia & Ors. A reference of the judgment delivered in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior vs. Nirmal Kumar Chordia & Ors. reported in AIR 1989 Madhya Pradesh 212 has also been made. Reference to reciprocal agreement of 2001 has also been made in the argument to show that Clause-V, provides that permits countersigned prior to the agreement were kept valid till their validity and Begun to Rawatbhata route was not shown in Annexure-A therein. The petitioners' argument that the aforesaid route was mistakenly shown in Annexure-B cannot be accepted and so as the fact of making representation by the petitioners to rectify the mistake and even countersignatures cannot validate an invalid permit. It is urged that Clause-V or sub-clause-11 of supplementary reciprocal agreement is not applicable to the present case as Begun to Rawatbhata route was not existing and it was opened for the first time on 17.7.2003. 11. Learned counsel for respondents has made emphasis on the judgment of this Court's seat at Jodhpur dated 23.10.2007. Thus, reiterating the facts mentioned above, the prayer of the respondents are to dismiss the writ petition. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 13. The first issue taken up by the petitioners is that the STAT has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the permits held by the petitioners. The aforesaid issue is raised by the petitioners and otherwise required to be decided in view of the direction of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3097/2009 decided on 31.3.2009. In the aforesaid case, direction was given to the Tribunal to decide the issue of maintainability of the appeal in the hands of the private respondents and other aspect as directed therein. It is alleged that Tribunal failed to follow the principles of natural justice and thereby appeals were decided vide order dated 31.3.2009 despite of a request made by (to ?) learned Tribunal to provide them an opportunity of hearing by deferring the matter in view of the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court. It has been stated till 9.4.2009 order dated 31.3.2009 was not pronounced, yet the Tribunal ignoring the mandate of the judgment of the High Court dated 31.3.2009 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3097/2009, decided the matter. According to learned counsel for respondents, it is the petitioner, who defaulted to come forward before the Tribunal to argue the matter. It has been stated till 9.4.2009 order dated 31.3.2009 was not pronounced, yet the Tribunal ignoring the mandate of the judgment of the High Court dated 31.3.2009 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 3097/2009, decided the matter. According to learned counsel for respondents, it is the petitioner, who defaulted to come forward before the Tribunal to argue the matter. The case was adjourned from time to time but when the petitioners failed to argue the matter, the Tribunal was left with no option but to decide the appeal within the time frame given by the High Court in its judgment dated 3.12.2008 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2595/2006. It is further submitted that judgment of the High Court in another writ petition so decided on 31.3.2009 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and in any case, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was maintainable. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioners were given opportunity of hearing but it seems that they failed to avail the same, the matter was adjourned from time to time and it was in the notice of the petitioners that in view of the judgment of this High Court dated 3.12.2008, appeal is to be decided within the time frame given, thus looking to the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the petitioners were not provided opportunity of hearing. So far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned, the aforesaid issue could have been argued by the petitioners before the Tribunal. However, the efforts of the petitioners remained to seek time due to pendency of the other writ petition decided on 31.3.2009. When this High Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2595/2006 gave direction to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh and petitioners were given liberty to raise all legal and factual grounds before the Tribunal, then it was incumbent for the petitioners to avail such an opportunity. It is true that Tribunal should have decided the issue as to whether appeal is maintainable or not in view of the remand order because if the original appeal preferred is looked into (which is available as Annexure-11 to the writ petition), then it comes out that aforesaid appeal was only against grant of five permits to the named persons therein and no grievance against renewal or grant of permit to the petitioners was made. It is also stated that as per Section 89 of the Act of 1988, a challenge in appeal can be made only on the issues provided under sub-section 1 (a) to (f). However, at this stage when the litigation between the parties traveled to many Courts and the appeal has now been decided pursuant to the remand order of this Court dated 3.12.2008, the matter could have been decided by the Tribunal even on the issue of maintainability of the appeal, however, for the reason that aforesaid issue was not argued by the petitioners before the Tribunal, I cannot accept their argument more so when the petitioners were given an opportunity of hearing, but was not availed and maintainability of the appeal is such an issue, which can be raised or even left during the course of argument. 14. Now coming to the merit of the case, it is not in dispute that a reciprocal agreement was made between the two States, namely, State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1975 and therein Chittorgarh to Bhensaroadgarh and Bhilwara to Bhensaroadgarh were the routes amongst others. It is on account of nationalization, portion from Chittorgarh to Balwant Nagar was curtailed and thereupon in the year 1977 permits were granted to the petitioners for Begun to Rawatbhata route, which was basically after leaving the curtailed routes. The permits were granted to the petitioners for Begun to Rawatbhata route in the year 1977 and since then they are operating that route. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 never challenged the grant of those permits to the petitioners in the year 1977 or at any stage when those permits were renewed on different six occasions and it is for the first time that in the year 2003 appeals were preferred by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 amongst others that too challenging grant of new permits to five other persons as is clear from the perusal of the appeal. Now taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), it becomes clear that if a route does not exist in the reciprocal agreement and is not otherwise notified after undertaking the procedures as provided under Section 88 of the Act, the authorities are not justified and authorized to grant permits. Now taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra), it becomes clear that if a route does not exist in the reciprocal agreement and is not otherwise notified after undertaking the procedures as provided under Section 88 of the Act, the authorities are not justified and authorized to grant permits. It is clearly held in the aforesaid case that existence of route in the reciprocal agreement is a pre-condition for grant of permits. It is also held that inter-state route under the scheme has to be reciprocal and cannot be created unilaterally. If the facts of that case are taken note of then it comes out that permits were granted for Sangaria to Delhi route claiming it to be part of the route Ganganagar to Delhi falling in the reciprocal agreement between two States. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation filed writ petition challenging grant of permits to the applicants therein. High Court set aside the order of the R.T.A. granting permits to the applicants for Sangaria to Delhi route. The appeals filed against the judgment were also dismissed by the High Court. The plea raised by the Road Transport Corporation was that they were providing service for Ganganagar to Delhi via Sangaria and applicants therein applied for grant of stage carriage permits by opening the inter-state route Sangaria to Delhi via Hisar and that too, without disclosing that the route is overlapping and in any case, R.T.A. decided to open Sangaria to Delhi route and temporary stage carriage permits were also granted. The challenge therein remained successful as Sangaria to Delhi was not a route provided in reciprocal agreement and it cannot be opened unilaterally. 15. If we look to the facts of this case, then it comes out that his case is entirely different than the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra). Because in this case, dispute arose not at the stage when permit for Begun to Rawatbhata route were given in the year 1977 and renewal from time to time on six occasions were also made. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed appeal in the year 2003 when supplementary reciprocal agreement was entered into and the said supplementary reciprocal agreement to 2003 makes a mention of Begun to Rawatbhata route in Schedule-A1. Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 filed appeal in the year 2003 when supplementary reciprocal agreement was entered into and the said supplementary reciprocal agreement to 2003 makes a mention of Begun to Rawatbhata route in Schedule-A1. Ashwani Kumar's case (supra) would have provided assistance if challenge to the grant of permit in the year 1977 is made but it is not so. 16. The case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) was having altogether different facts than the facts of this case. In the aforesaid judgment, Sangaria to Delhi route was not part of reciprocal agreement whereas Begun to Rawatbhata route is part of the supplementary reciprocal agreement and there exists gazette notification prior to issuance of permit. It is to be noted herein that litigation was initiated by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 when permits were granted after supplementary reciprocal agreement. The things would have been different and the assistance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) could have been provided if respondent Nos. 3 & 4 would have challenged grant of permits to the petitioners and renewal of the same on six occasions before the supplementary reciprocal agreement. Since two longer routes as mentioned above were existing in the reciprocal agreement in the year 1975 and thereupon in view of the nationalization policy, in the year 1976 R.T.A. granted permits to the petitioners in the year 1977 for the curtailed routes. The written arguments of respondent No. 4 seem to make emphasis mainly in regard to the said action of 1977 but then a challenge to grant of permit in the year 1977 has not been made in appeal before the Tribunal and is otherwise belated. Whether the permits so granted in the year 1977 for the curtailed route was valid or not and renewal on the same on six occasions is not an issue before this Court and it cannot be because challenge to the same, if any, is maintainable, then it should have been taken by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 then and there within the period of limitation. Thus, judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) has no application in this case as in the present case Begun-Rawatbhata was a notified route at the time of grant of permit in the year 2003. 17. Perusal of the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 then and there within the period of limitation. Thus, judgment in the case of Ashwani Kumar (supra) has no application in this case as in the present case Begun-Rawatbhata was a notified route at the time of grant of permit in the year 2003. 17. Perusal of the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 reveals that they had never challenged grant or renewal of the permits to the petitioners. Their challenge was limited to grant of permits to five other persons inasmuch as as per the supplementary reciprocal agreement of 2003, fifteen permits were provided for Begun to Rawatbhata route. For ready reference prayer made by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in their appeal is quoted hereunder- 18. It is necessary to state that even petitioners were not party respondents initially in the aforesaid appeal filed by Radheyshyam Teli or Shyamlal Ojha and many others as coming out from Annexure-12 wherein also the petitioners are not party. Apart from this, It is not in dispute that the petitioners are holding permits for last many years and their permits have been renewed from time to time on six occasions. Even in the writ petition of Nisar Ahmed filed before the High Court and decided vide judgment dated 23.10.2007, the matter was not between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and even in appeal preferred where learned counsel for respondent No.4-Shri B.L. Maheshwari, opposing the grant/renewal of the petitioners otherwise supported grant of permits to five new persons as is coming out from the decision dated 5.11.2007 of the Division Bench of this Court. Thus, subject matter of the decision in the aforesaid writ petition and appeal and observation made therein does not come in the way of the petitioner. In the S.L.P. preferred by the petitioners, a liberty was given to the petitioners to raise their objections before the appropriate forum, and thereafter order of the Tribunal dated 15.12.2005 was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 3.12.2008 on a petition filed by the petitioners, thus any observation made by this Court in the judgments dated 23.10.2007 and 5.11.2007 does not come in the way of the petitioners more so when they were not even party to the litigation therein. 19. 19. If the supplementary reciprocal agreement dated 17.7.2003 is looked into, then it comes out that both the States agreed to save permits countersigned by other State. Clause-2 and sub-clause (xi) is quoted hereunder for ready reference - "(2) After the existing sub-clause (x) of the clause 4 following new sub-clause (xi) shall be added - (xi) All the previous stage carriage permits for the routes mentioned in Annexure-'A' and 'A-1', which are countersigned by either State, before coming in force of this agreement shall remain in force. Annexure-1 (Non Notified Routes) S. No. Route Distance in Kms. Single Trips Operation Kms. No. of Permits Raj MP Total Raj MP Raj in MP MP in Raj Raj MP 4 Begun- Rawat-bhata via Singoli 59 21 80 30 10 630 590 15 5 20. Perusal of the aforesaid clauses which otherwise a part of the notification dated 17.7.2003 so published in the gazette and is otherwise Annexure-10 to the writ petition, it becomes clear that Begun to Rawatbhata route countersigned by either State was agreed to be remaining in force. It is necessary to notice that notification dated 17.7.2003 was not challenged by respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and without there being a challenge to the gazette notification pursuant to the supplementary reciprocal agreement, only grant of permits has been challenged that too in regard to five new permit holders. It is further necessary to note that even while case of Nasir Ahmed was decided by the learned Single Judge seat at Jodhpur the clause referred to above was not noticed because of the simple reason that it was a writ petition pertaining to grant of permit to five new persons and not in respect of grant/renewal of permits of the petitioners. In the judgment of Nisar Ahmed, even the date of gazette notification noticed was of State of Madhya Pradesh and not of State of Rajasthan because so far as State of Rajasthan is concerned, permits were granted/renewed to the petitioners subsequent to the notification and not before issuance of the notification and otherwise it has already been seen that notification so issued stipulates that previous stage carriage permits even countersigned by either State will remain in force, thus it was incumbent on the respondents to first challenge the said notification so as to challenge the grant of permits to the petitioners herein because till existence of the gazette notification with the clause quoted above grant/renewal to the petitioners cannot be held to be illegal because grant of permit on earlier occasion by either State came under reciprocal agreement. 21. If we look at the order passed by the Tribunal, then it comes out that the impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal in a very cursory manner. The Tribunal seems to be more concerned with the judgment delivered in the case of Nisar Ahmed (supra) ignoring the fact that so far as petitioners are concerned, they were given liberty by the Supreme Court to raise their objections before the appropriate forum and once judgment of the Tribunal dated 15.12.2005 which otherwise was subject matter of the decision in Nisar Ahmed's case has been set aside by this Court vide its order dated 3.12.2008, then it was expected from the Tribunal to look into all the aspects of the matter. The Tribunal has not even made a reference to sub-clause (xi) to the supplementary reciprocal agreement of 2003 and decided the appeal as if it is deciding the matter regarding grant/renewal to the petitioners from the year 1977 till 2003. The Tribunal even ignored the fact that as per gazette notification dated 17.7.2003, Begun to Rawatbhata route is shown to be a previous route with a clear stipulation that even if it is countersigned by one (sic) State, same will remain in force. Since gazette notification was issued and not challenged, the Tribunal was not having authority to decide the matter contrary to the gazette notification without it is being quashed by the competent forum. The terms of the notification dated 17.7.2003 cannot be read in different manner than it is provided. Since gazette notification was issued and not challenged, the Tribunal was not having authority to decide the matter contrary to the gazette notification without it is being quashed by the competent forum. The terms of the notification dated 17.7.2003 cannot be read in different manner than it is provided. A look at Clause-(ix) simplicitor shows that a saving was made regarding previous route and name of Begun to Rawatbhata route has been mentioned therein but ignoring the clause of the gazette notification which is again quoted hereunder for ready reference- "All the previous stage carriage permits for the routes mentioned in Annexures-'A' & 'A-1', which are countersigned by either State, before coming into force of this agreement shall remain in force." Annexure-1 (Non Notified Routes) S. No. Route Distance in Kms. Single Trips Operation Kms. No. of Permits Raj MP Total Raj MP Raj in MP MP in Raj Raj MP 4 Begun- Rawat bhata via Singoli 59 21 80 30 10 630 590 15 5 22. A bare reading of the aforesaid clause cannot mean that Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli was considered to be a new route and even if it was a new route in strict terms then it was saved by the gazette notification which remains unchallenged throughout. In the absence of the challenge to the gazette notification, decision of the Tribunal holding its finding contrary to the gazette notification cannot be held to be valid. The Tribunal even ignored as to what was challenged in appeal and as to what was the prayer of the appellants therein. The petitioners are holding permits almost for last three decades and if reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnudutt (supra) is taken note of, then it becomes clear that in Para 11, it is mentioned that permit-holders plying their vehicles since March 16, 1963, held not to be thrown out on any technical ground. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgment also, petitioners are having a case. 23. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition succeeds and accordingly impugned order is set aside with no order as to costs.