JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.7.2022 passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity-’the STAT’) whereby, the Appeal No.4/2022 preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.6.2022 passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Alwar, declining request of the petitioner to countersign the permit No.IS/Alwar/2 route Delhi to Alwar, has been dismissed. 2. The necessary facts leading to the present writ petition are that the petitioner is a Transport Operator and was issued a permit No.IS/Alwar/2 route Delhi to Alwar via Haryana initially in the year 1944 which was renewed from time to time and was countersigned by the Transport Department, Government of Rajasthan, valid till 8.12.2008. An agreement entered amongst the States of Rajasthan, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi NCR and published under Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity-’the Act of 1988’) vide Rajasthan gazette notification dated 1.12.2021, provided for countersignature by the State of Rajasthan on two permits for the Stage Carriage Buses issued by the Delhi NCR on the Delhi-Alwar via Haryana route. The subject permit issued to the petitioner was validated from 12.12.2018 to 11.12.2023 by the Government of NCT, Delhi which was requested by the petitioner to be countersigned by the State of Rajasthan under its obligation as per the gazette notification dated 1.12.2021; but, the respondent, vide its letter dated 31.1.2022, refused to countersign the same on the premise that it was issued prior to publication of gazette notification dated 1.12.2021. The refusal was despite recommendation of the Transport Authority, Delhi to countersign the permit till its validity as also the letter dated 25.4.2022 issued by the Secretary (STA)/Special Commissioner, Government of NCT of Delhi stating therein that the subject permit may be treated as issued from the date of dispatch of the letter, i.e., after issuance of the gazette notification. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned STAT vide its judgement dated 11.7.2022, subject matter of challenge. Relying upon the Note appended to Annexure “B” (B1), it is claimed that the permit issued by the State of Delhi prior to publication of the gazette notification was to be treated as valid permit for the purpose of countersignature. Relying upon the Note appended to Annexure “B” (B1), it is claimed that the permit issued by the State of Delhi prior to publication of the gazette notification was to be treated as valid permit for the purpose of countersignature. It is, therefore, prayed in the writ petition that the judgement dated 11.7.2022 be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to countersign the permit issued by the Government of NCT in petitioner’s favour. 3. The respondents have, in their reply, stated that since there exists no clause in the agreement dated 31.8.2021 published in the State gazette on 1.12.2021 which was executed superseding all the previous agreements, to consider the permit issued earlier as part of the agreement, the subject permit issued to the petitioner valid for the period from 12.12.2018 dated 11.12.2023, was not countersigned. It is further stated that the subject permit is issued for the route Delhi to Alwar under Annexure-A1 of the agreement which is not suffixed with a note that a permit issued prior to the agreement will be its part and hence, they have rightly refused to countersign the same. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. The respondents in their additional affidavit dated 3.8.2022 filed through Shri Kanhaiya Lal Swami, the Commissioner, Transport and Road Safety Department, Government of Rajasthan, stated that the agreement amongst the States of Delhi and Rajasthan, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and Haryana is as per Annexures A to F of the said agreement and each Annexure is applicable qua the respective two States mentioned in the agreement for the route or its portion. As per Annexure-A of the earlier transport agreement of the year 2010 executed amongst the Governments of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, route Delhi to Alwar via Haryana did not exist for the Private Stage Carriage Buses. It is further averred that after inclusion of the Delhi to Alwar via Haryana route under Annexure-A1 in the gazette notification dated 1.12.2021, a permit issued by the Delhi State after publication of the gazette notification can be countersigned by the State of Rajasthan for plying of the private carriage buses on the said route. 5. It is further averred that after inclusion of the Delhi to Alwar via Haryana route under Annexure-A1 in the gazette notification dated 1.12.2021, a permit issued by the Delhi State after publication of the gazette notification can be countersigned by the State of Rajasthan for plying of the private carriage buses on the said route. 5. In their additional affidavit dated 26.8.2022 filed through Shri Kanhaiya Lal Swami, the respondents have stated that as per Annexure-B1 of the agreement-2021, the permit issued by the Delhi and Haryana for plying private Stage Carriage Buses are valid for these two States only namely; Delhi and Haryana. 6. Shri Kanhaiya Lal Swami, in his additional affidavit dated 26.8.2022 stated that the petitioner had filed a writ petition no.9598/2017 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking a direction for the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar, Rajasthan to countersign the subject permit no.IS/Alwar-2 which came to be withdrawn by it on 25.10.2021 without any order in its favour. 7. Thereafter, the respondents filed an additional affidavit through Ms. Rani Jain, the Regional Transport Officer, Alwar wherein, she stated that an agreement was entered into between the Government of Rajasthan and Government of Delhi-NCT on 20.6.2001 which was notified in Rajasthan gazette on 3.4.2002 wherein, the route in question, i.e., Alwar-Delhi via Nagaon-Sona contemplated the grant of permit only to the State Transport Undertaking and the existing permits which were issued earlier in favour of the private operators were agreed to be continued only till the period for which the same were granted. It is averred that in pursuance thereof, the subject permit of the petitioner was not liable to be renewed by the Government of Delhi-NCT and consequently, was not liable to be countersigned by the Transport Authorities, Rajasthan; however, it appears that on account of inadvertence and ignorance of the condition no.4(vii) of the agreement dated 20.6.2001, the permit granted by the Delhi-NCT for Alwar-Delhi route came to be countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar vide order dated 17.4.2004 which refers the agreement of the year 1985 instead of the agreement of 2001. It is stated that under the notification dated 22.7.2010, no permit was countersigned by the State of Rajasthan for the private Stage Carriage Buses for the Delhi-Alwar route under Annexure-B1. It is stated that under the notification dated 22.7.2010, no permit was countersigned by the State of Rajasthan for the private Stage Carriage Buses for the Delhi-Alwar route under Annexure-B1. It is further stated that the petitioner had submitted applications on 14.2.2012 and on 25.2.2014 for countersignature of the permit issued to it by the Delhi-NCT which was declined as no such provision existed in the agreement-2010. 8. The respondents have in their reply-affidavit, stated that it has filed the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6718/2007 against refusal to operate the bus from authorized bus stand in the State of Rajasthan which was disposed of by this Court vide judgement dated 11.9.2007 whereby, the petitioner was permitted to file a representation to the State Government which was to be decided within a period of one month and till decision, the petitioner was allowed to ply its vehicles from the bus stand maintained by the Transport Department, Alwar being used by the RSRTC. It is, therefore, averred that the petitioner, as a grantee of the Government of Delhi-NCR, was plying its buses on the strength of a valid permit from Delhi to Alwar in three States namely; Delhi, Haryana and Rajasthan. With regard to the agreement dated 3.4.2002, it is averred that it is an agreement between State of Rajasthan and NCT-Delhi and not amongst the State of Rajasthan, Haryana and NCT-Delhi and, therefore, the earlier agreements entered amongst these States were not superseded or rescinded by it. It is further stated that in the agreement-2021, the subject route finds place in Annexure-A1 as also in Annexure-B1 and the saving clause provided in the note appended with the routes mentioned at Annexure-A1 and Annexure-B1 says that the valid permits granted earlier by both the States on which buses of the private operators are being operated as on the date, have been considered to be a part of this agreement for future operation. It is averred that since its permit was renewed by the STA, Delhi from 12.12.2018 to 11.12.2023, it is a validly granted permit since grant of renewal is also a grant of permit. 9. It is averred that since its permit was renewed by the STA, Delhi from 12.12.2018 to 11.12.2023, it is a validly granted permit since grant of renewal is also a grant of permit. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Shri Bharat Vyas, reiterating the averments made in the writ petition and reply-affidavit, submitted that the subject permit for the route Delhi-Alwar via Haryana is operative since 1944 and has been countersigned by the Rajasthan State from time to time as per its obligation under the inter-State agreement. He submitted that the note appended with Annexure-B1 of the gazette notification dated 1.12.2021 has to be read as note appended to Annexure-A1 also inasmuch as while, the first part of Annexure-A deals with the State Transport Undertaking, the State Transport Undertaking for the States of Delhi and Haryana are referred to in Part-II of Annexure-B and the routes for private Stage Carriage Buses for the Delhi and Rajasthan vis-à-vis Delhi and Haryana have been kept together. Relying upon Note-I to Annexure-B1, learned senior counsel would submit that the valid permits granted earlier shall have to be considered to be part of the agreement for future operation and, thus the respondents were under an obligation to countersign the same. Refuting the contention of the State that the Alwar-Delhi route via Haryana for private bus operators is a new route provided for the first time vide gazette notification dated 1.12.2021, the learned senior counsel, inviting attention of this Court towards the order dated 11.9.2007 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6718/2007, submits that it was operating its bus on the same route previously also. He, in this regard, also referred to clause-4(vii) of the notification dated 18.2.2002 published in the Delhi gazette which provided that private permit holders would be entitled to continue the services of the National roads reserved for Stage Carriage till the validity of permit. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 11.7.2022 passed by the learned STAT be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to countersign the subject permit. 10. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 11.7.2022 passed by the learned STAT be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to countersign the subject permit. 10. Per contra, learned Advocate General Shri M.S. Singhvi, reiterating the averments made in the reply and in the additional affidavits, inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Reciprocal Common Transport Agreement amongst the Governments of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh published in the Rajasthan gazette on 22.7.2010, would submit that the Delhi-Alwar route via Haryana was provided for the State Transport Undertaking only under the agreement in between Delhi and Rajasthan and this route for the private Stage Carriage Buses was provided only under the agreement in between Delhi and Haryana which was not countersigned by the Rajasthan State. He submits that the subject route for the private Stage Carriage Buses has been provided for the first time under the agreement published vide Rajasthan gazette dated 1.12.2021. Disputing and denying the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that note under Schedule B1, part of Annexure-B, has to be read as part of Annexure-A1 also since Annexure-A1 and Annexure-B1 both providing for the list of routes and number of permits for the private Stage Carriage Buses, have been put together, the learned AG submits that it is based on misconstruction and misinterpretation of the provisions of the notification. Inviting attention of this Court towards various Annexures, part of gazette notification dated 1.12.2021, he submits that each and every Annexure has its own note(s) and the note(s) under one Annexure cannot be read as note to any other Annexure. He submits that the judgement of learned STAT dated 11.7.2022 is well reasoned one based on material on record and does not warrant any interference by this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Heard. Considered. 12. To appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, this Court would first like to refer the statutory scheme for grant of Stage Carriage permits and its countersignature under the Act of 1988. 13. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 11. Heard. Considered. 12. To appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, this Court would first like to refer the statutory scheme for grant of Stage Carriage permits and its countersignature under the Act of 1988. 13. Section 2(31) of the Act defines “permit”-means a permit issued by a State or Regional Transport Authority or an Authority prescribed in this behalf under this Act authorising use of a motor vehicle as a transport vehicle. 14. Its sub-section (40) provides that “State Carriage” means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. 15. Section 66 provides that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passenger or any goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority. 16. Section 72 provides for grant of Stage Carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority. 17. Section 81 of the Act of 1988 lays down that a permit other than a temporary permit issued under Section 87 or a special permit issued under sub-section (8) of Section 88 shall be effective from the date of issuance or renewal thereof for a period of five years. Its proviso lays down that where the permit is countersigned under sub-section (1) of Section 88, the countersignature shall remain effective without renewal for such period so as to synchronise with the validity of the primary permit. Its sub-section (5) provides that where a permit has been renewed under this Section after the expiry of the period thereof, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry. 18. Section 86 provides for cancellation and suspension of permits under certain contingencies. 19. Section 88 of the Act of 1988 lays down the scheme for validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. It provides that a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. 19. Section 88 of the Act of 1988 lays down the scheme for validation of permits for use outside region in which granted. It provides that a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. Its sub-clause (4) provides that provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignature of permits; provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 for grant of countersignature 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 after complying with the requirements of sub-section (5). 20. Analysing the provisions of Section 88 of the Act, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively held in case of A. Venkatakrishnan vs. State Transport Authority, Kerala- (2004) 11 SCC 207 , as under: “12. Furthermore, the definition of “route”, as contained in Section 2(38) of the Act means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a motor vehicle between one terminus and another. Therefore, before an inter-State route in respect whereof a permit is sought to be granted is determined, the question of filing any application therefor by a person before the State Transport Authority of his State would not arise unless an agreement in relation thereto has been entered into by the States concerned and the routes as also the number of trips are fixed thereunder. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the State Transport Authority of one State would have no jurisdiction to entertain an application for grant of an inter-State route, particularly when Section 80 of the Act will have no application in relation thereof unless an agreement is entered into by the State concerned. 13. A purposive and meaningful construction, it is trite, must be given to a statute, so that it is made workable. A statute should not be construed in such a manner, which would create a vacuum. 13. A purposive and meaningful construction, it is trite, must be given to a statute, so that it is made workable. A statute should not be construed in such a manner, which would create a vacuum. In the absence of any route being fixed in terms of an agreement, in the event it be held that an application for grant of permit for inter-State route can be entertained, the same would lead to a futile exercise. A mutual approval of the States concerned, in the matter, therefore, must be held to be mandatory. In other words, the proviso, appended to sub-section (4) of Section 88 of the Act, must be read conjointly with sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 thereof and, consequently, it must be held that by necessary implication agreements are contemplated for creation of inter-State routes.” 21. A coordinate bench of this Court has also, in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. R.T.A., Bikaner & Ors.,-AIR 1996 Rajasthan 11, held as under: “10. In the light of the above, the legal position which emerges is that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is the prerogative of the two or more concerned States only to open, establish and create an inter-State route lying in their respective jurisdiction by entering into a reciprocal transport agreement and to get it finalized by following the procedure prescribed under Sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 88 of the Act of 1988. In the instant case undisputedly there exists no such agreement amongst the concerned States. More so, this route does not exist prior to the passing of the impugned order and it was for the first time that the route Sangaria-Delhi has been opened by the RTA. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision in this regard empowering RTA to open the inter-State route without following procedure that too when there was neither any agreement to this effect nor there existed such route, in my view, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the RTA has committed illegality, has some substance which find support from the fact that the petitioner being an operator on Ganganagar-Delhi via Dabwali, Hisar inter-State route under a reciprocal agreement between the State of Rajasthan and Haryana and is plying bus which is fully overlapped by the impugned permit granted on Sangaria to Delhi inter-State route. Undoubtedly, private operators are excluded and no permit could be granted on the area or a portion thereof except to the extent excluded under the scheme itself. However, permit can be granted on an existing route beyond over all limit of the agreement but vehicle can be plied in the other States only after counter-signatures of the competent authority of that State as per the provisions of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though opening of a route and fixing of scope is an administrative matter but without following the prescribed procedure as per law, the R.T.A. has no jurisdiction to create a new inter-State route as it is also necessary to specify route and number of trips in the inter-State agreement. Under the circumstances, the impugned order of the R.T.A. is liable to be set aside being without jurisdiction, and per se illegal.” 22. Thus, the legal position which emerges from the aforesaid judgments is that right of an operator to ply vehicle on inter-State route is governed by the reciprocal agreement entered into by the States concerned. 23. The petitioner is claiming its right to get the subject permit countersigned under the reciprocal common transport agreement among the Governments of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh published in the Rajasthan gazette on 1.12.2021 which supersedes all the previous agreements on the subject entered among them for NCR and provides that it shall have an overriding effect over all other agreements applicable to the NCR in this regard. The subject route i.e., Delhi-Alwar via Haryana for Private Stage Carriages Buses as per agreement in between Delhi and Rajasthan is provided under Annexure-A-1 with a note underneath that buses shall originate and terminate at designated bus terminal. For the routes available for the Private Carriage Buses under Annexure-B-1 for the States of Delhi and Haryana, one of the notes underneath provides that the valid permits granted earlier by both the States on which buses of private operators are being operated as on date have been considered to be a part of this agreement for future operation. For the routes available for the Private Carriage Buses under Annexure-B-1 for the States of Delhi and Haryana, one of the notes underneath provides that the valid permits granted earlier by both the States on which buses of private operators are being operated as on date have been considered to be a part of this agreement for future operation. The sheet-anchor of the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that since, Part-I of Annexure-A, which deals with State Transport Undertaking, is followed by Annexure-A-1 dealing with the subject route and Annexure-B1 which provides list of number of permits for the Private Stage Carriage Buses under the agreement in between Delhi and Haryana precedes the list of routes for State Transport Undertaking which is provided under Annexure-B-II, the note underneath Annexure-B1 should also be read as part of Annexure-A1 cannot be countenanced for the reason that notes below two Annexures are not common. In addition to note no.1, part of Annexure-B1, which validates earlier permits granted by both the States for the purpose of subject agreement also, there are three more notes with the note no.4 being common to the note underneath Annexure-A1 and the notes nos.2 and 3 leave no room for doubt that these are specific for the routes provided under Annexure-B1. Even otherwise also, the subject agreement comprises of as many as six Annexures some of which are sub-divided in further Annexures and each Annexure (table) is followed by its own note(s). 24. There is another important reason not to find merit in the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. While, all the 15 routes under Annexure-B1 of the gazette notification dated 1.12.2021 were existing under Annexure-B1, a part of preceding reciprocal common transport agreement among the Governments of Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh published in the gazette notification dated 22.7.2010, the subject route, i.e., the Delhi-Alwar via Haryana for the Private Stage Carriage Buses under the agreement between Delhi and Rajasthan did not exist in the gazette notification dated 22.7.2010. Therefore, the note1, part of Annexure-B1, cannot be treated as part and parcel of Annexure-A1 merely because Annexure-B1 immediately follows Annexure-A1. 25. Refusal to countersign the pre-existing permit issued by Delhi NCT for the Delhi Alwar route via Haryana is in tune with the statutory scheme also. Therefore, the note1, part of Annexure-B1, cannot be treated as part and parcel of Annexure-A1 merely because Annexure-B1 immediately follows Annexure-A1. 25. Refusal to countersign the pre-existing permit issued by Delhi NCT for the Delhi Alwar route via Haryana is in tune with the statutory scheme also. Section 71 of the Act provides the procedure to be adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for Stage Carriage permit. It provides that as and when applications for grant of Stage Carriage permit are received, after reserving such number of permits as provided under clause(c) for the applicants of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, suitability will be adjudged on the factors mentioned therein and other conditions being equal, preference has to be given as provided under clause (d). The subject route being a new route, proper notice has to be issued inviting applications for issuance of permit and the successful applicants only, are entitled for countersignature of their permit. Indisputably, such a procedure is yet to be followed in the present case. 26. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is dismissed accordingly. 27. Pending application also stands disposed of.