JUDGMENT : Heard. 2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 17/12/2013; by which the revision petition No. 476/2011 under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior. 3. Facts necessary for disposal of writ petition are to the effect that route Orai to Bhind is an interstate route in respect whereof, there is a reciprocal agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh duly published in the official gazette dated 21/11/2006. The present route finds place at Sr. No. 9 in Schedule 'A' of the said reciprocal agreement. Total length of the route is 98 kms, out of which 55 kms lies in State of Madhya Pradesh. As per the aforesaid reciprocal agreement, 12 trips and 6 permits have been allotted to each State for operating the route by their nominees. As per clause No. 4 (16) of the said agreement, a permit holder has to apply within 15 days from the date of grant of permit/renewal of permit for counter signature, otherwise the permit shall be cancelled. The State Transport Appellate Authority, Uttar Pradesh granted permit No. 1/STA/Stage-11 in favour of respondent No. 2 permitting him to operate the bus single trip daily on the said route from Orai to Bhind. As per the reciprocal agreement, respondent No. 2 was required to submit an application for counter signature before the authority of State of M.P. in terms of Clause 4(16) of aforesaid reciprocal agreement within 15 days from the date of grant of permit i.e. 31/1/2011. Respondent No. 2 on 23/4/2011 has submitted his application for counter signature before respondent No. 1 alongwith letter of recommendation issued by Secretary, STA, Uttar Pradesh. 4. Petitioner's husband Shri Manikchand Sharma, who was holding the permit No. 532/151/STA/Stage/96 to operate bus on the interstate route of Orai to Bhind via Mihona issued by State Transport Authority and duly counter singed by respondent No. 1 Secretary, STA has raised an objection to the same on the ground of delay in applying for counter signature. After death of husband, petitioner as a legal heir is operating the said bus. This objection was rejected after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration material placed on record vide order dated 24/7/2011 granting counter signature on the permit applied by respondent no. 2. After death of husband, petitioner as a legal heir is operating the said bus. This objection was rejected after hearing the petitioner and taking into consideration material placed on record vide order dated 24/7/2011 granting counter signature on the permit applied by respondent no. 2. being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred a review petition before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal though has found the review petition barred by time, however, condoning the delay it dealt with the objections as raised on merits and vide impugned order has rejected the review petition of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his arguments to the aforesaid rejection of objection as regards counter signature being appended after prescribed limitation of 15 days. Tribunal has rejected the objection inter alia holding that the provision as contained in reciprocal agreement cannot be read independent of the provisions as contained in the Motor Vehicle Act which is framed by way of reciprocal agreement for the purposes of giving effect to said provisions of Section 88 of Motor Vehicle Act. Heard. 6. Having gone through the averments made in the petition and submissions advance, it appears that the permit granted to respondent No. 2 is in fact pursuant to the interstate reciprocal transport agreement between two States by Transport Authority, State of Uttar Pradesh. The permit is in operation for plying of bus on the aforesaid route. Clause 4 (16) of the said agreement in fact is regulatory in nature, and therefore, same cannot be construed strictly by applying strict literal interpretations. Moreover, the requirement of counter signature is to help facilitate of regulation of plying of buses for the public at large. Mere delay in submission of application for counter signature in the instant case, under such circumstances cannot therefore, resultantly, render requirement of counter signature under Section 88 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act otiose. Clause as contained in Clause 4 (16) is to give purposive interpretation being regulatory in nature which is intended for fulfillment of requirement of Section 88 of Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Mere delay in seeking counter signature by itself cannot justify denial of the right of plying of buses by virtue of permit granted by State Transport Authority. Consequently, the revision petition is bereft of merits, same is therefore, dismissed.