JUDGMENT : This case has got chequered history. Revision has been remanded back to this Court by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.A.No.4442 of 1999. The Honourable Supreme Court in C.A.No.4442 of 1999 dated 08.03.2017 passed the following order : "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been pointed out that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy vs. State Transport Authority and others, Reported in (2016) 8 SCC 402 has laid down the principles on which an approved scheme has to be considered. The High Court has to go into the matter in the light of the principles laid down in this Constitution Bench Judgement. In this view of the matter, we remand the matter to the High Court to consider the case afresh in the light of the principles land down in G.T. Venkatasamy Reddy case supra. The High Court is requested to decide the matter expeditiously in accordance with law. It will be open for the appellant to approach the High Court within four weeks for grant of appropriate interim relief. The Civil Appeal is disposed of the above terms." 2. Therefore once again the Revision Petitioner has advanced his arguments. During the pendency of the Revision an Impleading Petition has also been filed in C.M.P.No.2730 of 2019. 3. The brief facts leading to file this Revision is as follows : 3.(a) The Revision Petitioner was subsequent transferee of permit of one Tmt.Kulsumbi alias Bibijan, who has originally filed the revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.3605 of 1984. Then the Revision Petitioner was brought on record during the pendency of the Revision. The facts relevant to dispose of this Revision is as follows: 3.(b) One Tmt. Kulsumbi alias Bibijan has obtained permission from the State Transport Authority, Karnataka with respect to the State Carriage MYK 6199 to fly between the interstate route Bangalore to Jolarpet (via) Madiwala, Chandapura, Athipalli, Hosur, Shoolagir, Krishnagiri, Bargur and Thirupathur in the year 1981 for doing two singles per day. The Karnataka State Transport Authority granted the permit and for grant of counter signature of the said permit the said Tmt. Kusalmbi made an application to the State Transport Authority, Chennai. The Said application was notified. There were as many as representations. The Applicant and representatives were heard by State Transport Authority on 20.04.1982. The Karnataka State Transport Authority granted the permit and for grant of counter signature of the said permit the said Tmt. Kusalmbi made an application to the State Transport Authority, Chennai. The Said application was notified. There were as many as representations. The Applicant and representatives were heard by State Transport Authority on 20.04.1982. After hearing the representations, State Transport Authority rejected the application on the ground that the inter-state route Bangalore-Jolarpet is not covered by the inter-state agreement between the states of the Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. There are two draft schemes for nationalisation one Vellore to Krishnagiri which excludes other persons operating the route or sectors of the route. 3.(c) Aggrieved over the same the petitioner filed an appeal in Appeal No.770/82 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras. The Appellate Tribunal also found that the sector from Jolarpet to Krishnagiri covers 52 Kms. over laps the scheme route Vellore to Krishnagiri. The other scheme excludes the other persons operating on the route for 25 kms. and above except the State Transport undertaking of the State of and other persons of other state operating under any existing or future interstate agreement. On that basis the appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that if the scheme would completely eliminate the operator after a particular distance in the scheme route, the question of granting counter signature of the permit will not arise. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition. 3.(d) This court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. As against which appeal was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court remanded the matter as stated above to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition on merits. 4. C.M.P. No. 2730 of 2019 has been filed by on M. Sivakumar to implead him in the C.R.P. on the ground that he is an existing stage carriage operator operating stage carriage bearing TN 83 W 4646 to fly under route “Krishnagiri to Vaniyambadi” via Burgur, Kandhili, Tirupattur and Jolarpet. The permit being issued by the Regional Transport Authority Krishnagiri. This permit was originally in his father's name and transferred in his name in the year 1990. Since then he is operating the stage carriage. According to him counter signature cannot be granted. The permit being issued by the Regional Transport Authority Krishnagiri. This permit was originally in his father's name and transferred in his name in the year 1990. Since then he is operating the stage carriage. According to him counter signature cannot be granted. Tamil Nadu Government has no authority to grant counter signature for interstate route and he is existing operator in the route he has to be impleaded in the revision. The above application was objected by the Revision Petitioner on the ground that the petitioner or his predecessor has not filed any application for impleading either before this court in CRP proceedings or before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal. The matter has been remanded by Supreme Court to decide the issue on specific grounds. Therefore, the applicant has no right to implead in this revision petition. Neither the petitioner nor his father was party before either original authority or before the appellate authority or before this court or the Supreme Court. Therefore, prayed dismissal of the application. 5. Counsel appearing for the impleading petitioner submitted that he should be heard because he is existing operator and his right will also be affected in the event of counter signature is directed to be signed by the Tamil Nadu authorities. He being the existing operator in the covered scheme he should be heard in the Revision Petition. 6. First of all, I decide the application for impleading. This revision petition has got a chequered history as stated above. The revision petition originally filed by the predecessor in title one Tmt. Kulsumbi. Her revision in C.R.P.No.3605 of 1984 was dismissed by this Court confirming the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, dated 6.1.1983 and 5.4.84 as against which an appeal was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court. In the appeal stage, the revision petitioner was substituted himself as subsequent transferee of permit. Honourable Supreme Court remanded the matter to decide the revision only in the light of the constitution bench judgment. The Impleading petitioner claimed to be the existing operator he was neither the party nor gave any representation at the time the issue was originally arose in the year 1982. According to him he is operating the bus from the year 1984. The Impleading petitioner claimed to be the existing operator he was neither the party nor gave any representation at the time the issue was originally arose in the year 1982. According to him he is operating the bus from the year 1984. The issue relate to this CRP with regard to the counter signature to be made by the Tamil Nadu aurhorities in the year 1982 and whether the counter signature by the authorities could be made or not is the issue in the Revision Petition and whether the revision petitioner is entitled to counter signature in pursuance to the judgment of the constitution bench reported in G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy vs. State Transport Authority and others [ (2016) 8 SCC 402 ]. The impleading Petitioner has not at all made any representation at any point of time even before the original authority or Appellate Tribunal and also before this court. When the matter was remanded by the Honourable Supreme Court to decide the issue afresh in the light of the constitution bench judgment, at this stage this application has been filed. I am of the view that the impleading petitioner is not at all necessary to decide the issue when he is neither a party nor made any representation at earlier point of time. Merely because he is operating from the year 1984 in the particular area, his presence is not necessary to decide the Civil Revision Petition. Accordingly the Impleading Petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 7. The counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner would submit that permit was granted by the Karnataka State Transport Authority in the year 1969 in favour of Tmt. Kulsumbi alias Bibijan. This being the inter state route, the provision governing the grant of interstate permit was Section 63 of the old Act 4 of 1939. According to him by application dated 20.10.1981 the erstwhile operator Tmt. Kulsulmi made an application before the Tamil Nadu State Transport Authority, Madras, for counter signature of the permit. According to the learned counsel at the relevant point of time the provision of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was in force and in terms of said provision once an application for grant of permit for grant of signature is received by the Transport Authority the same has to be notified under Section 57 (3) of the said Act. According to the learned counsel at the relevant point of time the provision of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was in force and in terms of said provision once an application for grant of permit for grant of signature is received by the Transport Authority the same has to be notified under Section 57 (3) of the said Act. According to him there was 10 objections received in respect of the application. No operator filed any objection to the application made for counter signature whatsoever. According to the learned counsel only the person who made representation to the application for counter signature was alone entitled to be heard and no other person entitled to raise any objection to the application for counter signature. However the original authority has rejected the said application on 14.06.1982 on the two grounds viz., (1) Route in question over laps on draft scheme routes in respect of the route Bangalore to Vellore and Vellore to Krishnagiri of the year 1976 and (2) There was no inter state agreement in between two states in respect of the above route and therefore her application was rejected. According to the learned counsel, for rejection of application for counter signature the original authority relied upon two draft schemes. According to the learned counsel first draft scheme was not approved within one year from the date of coming into force of the Act 1988. therefore, the draft scheme stands lapsed. In support of his contention he relied upon judgment in Krishan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and others [ (1991) 4 SCC 258 ]. 8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that though there was another draft scheme in the year 1995 on the date of publication of the scheme said Tmt.Kulsumbi was already operating the route since 1994 in pursuance to the order of this Court. Thereafter another draft scheme was introduced in the year 1999. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 was came into existence. The object of the above said Act was only to protect the existing operator who are granted permit or variation or renewal of permit in between the two cut off dates 04.06.1976 and 30.06.1990. The Act is known as Tamil Nadu Special Provisions Motor Vehicles Act 1992. The object of the above said Act was only to protect the existing operator who are granted permit or variation or renewal of permit in between the two cut off dates 04.06.1976 and 30.06.1990. The Act is known as Tamil Nadu Special Provisions Motor Vehicles Act 1992. Section 10 of the above Act validates grant, renewal and variation of permits etc., granted in between the two cut off dates viz., 04.06.1976 and 30.06.1990. 9. Hence it is the contention of the learned counsel that the counter signature was made by original authority in the year 1994 in pursuant to the order of this Court which fall in between the two cut off dates contemplated under Act 41 of 1992. Therefore the authorities rejecting the application is not vaid. In support of his contention he has relied upon judgment of this court passed in W.P.Nos.1221 to 1223 of 1991 etc batch. [Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd., Dharmapuri v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai and others.] Further, Act 41 of 1992 overrides the provision under Motor Vehicles Act and also draft and approved scheme. He has also relied upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A.No.331 of 1994 and W.P.Nos.22605 of 1993 and 3937, 3938, 4110 and 4111 of 1994 [V. Gowri v. Raman Roadways rep. by its Proprietor R. Venkatavaradan and others, etc.,]. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that when the counter signature was signed in the year 1982 he was saved under Act 41 of 1992. Therefore the order of the rejection by the authorities is not according to law and he is entitled to counter signature by the authorities. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the State Transport authority contended that the counter signature is not an automatic. Only when there is interstate agreement between two states the counter signature is permissible under old Act under Section 63. Admittedly there is no inter state agreement between the two states. Therefore the contention of the revision petitioner that authorities shall counter sign cannot be maintainable. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that admittedly there were many approved draft scheme and notification issued in the year 1992, 1995 and 1999 published in the Government Gazette. Admittedly there is no inter state agreement between the two states. Therefore the contention of the revision petitioner that authorities shall counter sign cannot be maintainable. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that admittedly there were many approved draft scheme and notification issued in the year 1992, 1995 and 1999 published in the Government Gazette. The draft scheme completely exclude the other persons, other than existing permits of small operator protected under Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provision Act 1992 (Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992), the permits of stage operators overriding on interstate routes whose permits are covered by inter state agreement. Therefore, since there are two draft schemes already introduced the counter signature is not permissible under statute. Hence submitted that the Constitution Bench judgment G.T. Venkatasamy Reddy case (supra) is squarely applicable to the present case. The Constitution Bench has already decided the issue and held that the grant of new permission or the variation of the existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of the area of the route covered by approved scheme. Hence submitted that the revision lakhs merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is the contention of the learned counsel that by orders of the interim orders the revision petitioner was successful in carrying out the operation without any valid permit. Hence submitted that the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is worth to refer paras 46 and 47 of the Constitution Bench judgment in G.T. Venkataswamy Reddy vs. State Transport Authority and others [ (2016) 8 SCC 402 ] "Section 68FF of the Act is an important section which requires to be noted with some deeper scrutiny. Section 68FF creates a restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified route. A close reading of the said provision discloses that where an approved scheme as stipulated under Section 68D(3) of the Act in respect of an area or a route is published, then, it prohibits grant of any permit except in accordance with the provisions of this scheme. A close reading of the said provision discloses that where an approved scheme as stipulated under Section 68D(3) of the Act in respect of an area or a route is published, then, it prohibits grant of any permit except in accordance with the provisions of this scheme. The substantive part of Section 68FFtherefore makes it clear that once the approved scheme comes into play, then, there will not be any scope for grant of any permit in that area or the route covered by the scheme, except what is specifically permitted or provided under that scheme itself. By way of an analogy, it can be stated that where, under the scheme while the State Transport Undertaking alone is exclusively permitted to operate the service in any particular area or route and even while providing for such exclusive operation by State Transport Undertaking, if the operation by any existing permit holder is saved either fully or partially that as rightly stated in ‘RAGHURAM’ and ‘EGAPPAN’, such operation by other private operators gets frozen and as was held by us earlier, while interpreting Section 57 (8) of the Act that application for variation will be nothing but an application for grant of a new permit. Therefore, even in respect of protected operation under the scheme of any existing operator, as on the date of the approved scheme, he will have to restrict his operations to the extent to which he was permitted as on that date and the manner in which such operation was permitted and not beyond. 47. Once things get frozen, the frozen stage can be changed only by way of a permitted process. Here, when by virtue of Section 68FF of the Act, the permit stood frozen, as on the date the scheme was published, then, if the said frozen stage is to be altered or modified, the provision by which such modification or alteration can be effected can be only by applying Section 68E, which is the legally permissible manner in which such frozen stage can be altered or modified. Any other manner in which the said frozen stage is sought to be altered or modified, that is totally prohibited under the statutory provisions. Any other manner in which the said frozen stage is sought to be altered or modified, that is totally prohibited under the statutory provisions. Therefore, if under the scheme, if the permit gets frozen, within the prescriptions contained under the scheme and if a variation is to be considered for that permit either by way of increase in the number of trips or addition of vehicle without any modification or alteration effected under Section 68E of the Act, it will be wholly prohibited under the provisions falling under Chapter IV-A and consequently, such variation applied for can never even be considered by any of the authorities. That will be the consequential effect of the application of Section 68FF of the Act and other relevant provisions falling under Chapter IV-A. In our considered opinion, any other interpretation would run contrary to the prescription contained in Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act." 12. Further para 50(g) makes it very clear that once approved scheme came into existence there will not be any scope for grant of any permit in that area or route covered by the scheme, except what is specifically permitted or provided under that scheme itself. Once things get frozen, the frozen stage can be changed only by way of a permitted process. Therefore, the above judgment makes it clear that once permit gets frozen any other manner in which the said frozen stage is sought to be altered or modified, that is totally prohibited under the statutory provisions. In summing up, the Constitution Bench clearly held that either grant of new permit or the variation of an existing permit of private operator cannot be ordered in respect of an area or route covered by an approved scheme. 13. Admittedly in this case, scheme of the year 1995 was published by G.O.Ms.No.741 Home (Transport III) 23rd May 1955 dated May 24, 1995 wherein entire scheme also completely exclude area comprising entire revenue district of Dharmapuri brought under the scheme. Other persons other than the State Transport undertakings of other states and existing permit of small operators protected under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act and whose permit are covered by the interstate agreement. Similarly, in 1999 G.O.Ms.No.1523 another scheme was also introduced in respect of the entire revenue district Dharmapuri. Other persons other than the State Transport undertakings of other states and existing permit of small operators protected under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act and whose permit are covered by the interstate agreement. Similarly, in 1999 G.O.Ms.No.1523 another scheme was also introduced in respect of the entire revenue district Dharmapuri. The scheme saved only the operators covered by the interstate agreements and protected under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Provisions Act 1992. It is to be noted admittedly there is no iota of evidence produced by the revision petitioner to show that there was Inter-state agreement between two states at the relevant time when he applied for counter signature. It is the definite case of the State Government that there is no Inter-state agreement between two states. In this regard Section 63 of the old Act when carefully seen the same is read as follows : "63. (1) 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 other state unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport authority concerned : [Provided that a private carrier's permit, granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region with the approval of the State Transport Authority for any area in any other region or regions within the same State shall be valid in that area without the countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other regions concerned.] (2) A Regional Transport Authority when countersigning the permit may attach to the permit any condition which it might have imposed if it had granted the permit, and may likewise vary any condition attached to the permit by the authority by which the permit was granted. (3) The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits : [Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of countersignatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one state are required to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of another State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned as a result of any agreement arrived at between the States.] 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a Regional Transport Authority of one region may issue a temporary permit under clause (a) or clause (c) or sub-section (1) of Section 62 to be valid in another region or state with the concurrence, given generally or for the particular occasion, of the Regional Transport Authority of that other region or of the State Transport Authority of that other State, as the case may be. (5) A State Government may, by rules made under section 68, specify the condition subject to which a document issued by a competent authority in the State of Jammu and Kashmir authorising the use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle may be deemed for the purpose of sub-section (1) to be a permit granted under this Chapter in the State. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, the Regional Transport Authority of any one region may, for the convenience of the public, grant a special permit in relation to a public service vehicle for carrying a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and in every case where such special permit is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified by the Central Government and such a special permit shall be valid in any other region or state without countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport Authority of the Regional Transport Authority of the other religion or of the State Transport Authority of the other State, as the case may be." Proviso to Sub-clause 3 deals with the counter signature of the State Government and such counter signature to be made only where any agreement arrived between two states. Therefore to obtain a counter signature one of the conditions is the interstate agreement arrived between the states. Absolutely there is no evidence whatsoever available on record to show that there is inter state agreement between the two states. Therefore, as a matter or right, the Revision Petitioner cannot claim the counter signature by the Tamil Nadu Authorities. Therefore, the contention of the Revision Petitioner that his rejection is not based on proper appreciation has no legs to stand. It is to be noted that Section 88 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1998 is parimutuel to Section 63 of the old Act that also stipulates that the interstate agreement between the states is sine quo non for the counter signature. 14. Yet another submission of the Revision Petitioner is that he was saved by the Act 41 of 1992. According to him permit between two cut off dates i.e., 4.6.1972 to 30.06.1990 is validated by the Act 41 of 1992. Therefore, his case is that since his permit was reviewed under the Orders of the Court he saved by the Act 41 of 1992. According to him permit between two cut off dates i.e., 4.6.1972 to 30.06.1990 is validated by the Act 41 of 1992. Therefore, his case is that since his permit was reviewed under the Orders of the Court he saved by the Act 41 of 1992. No doubt W.P.No.1221, 1223/91 Division Bench of this Court in page 33 has held that if an operator who had obtained permit outside the State and also obtained the counter signature in this State between the relevant dates, his permit is undoubtedly validated by the provisions of Section 10 of the impugned Act. It is to be noted that the counter signature has not been made by the State authorities applying the provisions infact state authorities have rejected the request of the revision petitioner Only the interim orders enabled the revision petitioner to operate the bus during the pendency of the revision. Merely on the basis of the interim orders which enable the revision petitioner to operate the bus, it cannot be stated that such counter signature validly done by the authorities legally. Therefore, such contention in my view cannot be countenanced. Admittedly, to get the counter signature legally, one of the conditions was interstate agreement as per the statue. When there was no interstate agreement between two states in that regard merely on the basis of the interim orders of the court one cannot contend that his permit granted in pursuance to the interim direction of the court automatically validated by the Act 41 of 1992. Therefore, the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be countenanced at all. Though he has placed reliance on the order of Division Bench of this Court and some other judgments of this Court, this court is of the view that in view of the constitution bench judgment which has covered entire aspect the revision petitioner cannot contend that only the judgments of this courts applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. The matter has been remanded only to dispose of the revision only in terms of the Constitution Bench Judgment. Therefore this Court cannot go behind the scope of the remand order passed by the Apex Court. At any event, since the revision petitioner has made his contention beyond the scope of the remand order made by the Apex Court. That Court also dealt the same. Therefore this Court cannot go behind the scope of the remand order passed by the Apex Court. At any event, since the revision petitioner has made his contention beyond the scope of the remand order made by the Apex Court. That Court also dealt the same. The Constitution Bench Judgment of the Apex Court makes it clear that as long as the approved scheme is already in existence no variation or grant of new permit is permissible. As already discussed, there is no interstate agreement between two states. that being the position, the area scheme published by the Government in G.O.No.746 dated 23.5.2005 also save only the existing permit of small operators operating of interstate routes whose permits were covered by interstate agreement. Similarly, the scheme of the year 1999 publishing G.O.No.1523 also makes it clear that only small operators protected under Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Special Previsions Act Tamil Nadu Act, 1992 [Act 1941 of 92] covered by the interstate agreements are saved under that scheme. When there is no interstate agreement, as a matter of right revision petitioner cannot contend that his permit is also saved. Accordingly the Revision lacks merit and liable to be dismissed. Order of rejecting the application is confirmed. 16. In the result, C.M.P.No.2730 of 2019 and the Revision Petition No.3605 of 1984 are dismissed. C.M.P.Nos.6658 of 2018 and 2733 of 2019 are closed. No costs.