V. KANDEEPAN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent herein to grant the renewal of countersignature of permit for the period from 2-2-95 to 1-2-2000 in accordance with the final inter-state reciprocal agreement entered into between the States of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry on 19-4-85 in respect of Petitioner's Vehicle PY 01.1999 plying on the inter-State route Villipuram to Cuddalore via Madagadipet, without reference to the Accountant General Views. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he is a stage carriage operator in Pondicherry and among others, he is operating vehicle PY. 01.1999 on the inter-State route Villupuram to Cuddalore via. Madagadipet granted by the second respondent herein. It is further stated that the said permit is covered by inter-State agreement dated 19-4-1985 between the Government of , Tamil Nadu and the Government of Pondicherry and which was notified in the Government of Pondicherry Gazette by G.O.Ms.No.3/85, dated 9-3-1985. It is further stated that the petitioner applied before the Primary Authority, namely. State Transport Authority, Pondicherry for renewal of the permit as well as the countersignature of the permit on 3-1-95 and the same was granted for a period of five years from 2-2-95 to 1-2-2000. Later, the petitioner presented the primary permit for countersignature before the first respondent, the State Transport Authority, Madras-5, on 3-1 -95. It is the grievance of the petitioner that so far the first respondent has not countersigned the primary permit. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has approached this Court for the above relief.

(2.) A Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it is stated as follows:-

(3.) Mrs. Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent, State Transport Authority, Madras-5, is not passing any order by countersigning the primary permit granted by the second respondent renewing the permit for the period from 2-2-95 to 1-2-2000 on the ground that the Accountant General has pointed out to the first respondent that in the instant route both the starting point and the terminus are in the same State and as such the same will come under the proviso to Sec. 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and that by mistake the route has been included in the inter-state agreement. Mrs. Radha Gopalan, the learned counsel vehemently contended that even if the instant route falls within the purview of proviso (2) to Sec. 88 (1), unless the inter-state agreement between the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Government of Pondicherry dated 19-1-1985 is amended the agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement and once the primary authority, the Regional Transport Authority, Pondicherry renewed the permit of the petitioner for a period of five years from 2-2-1995 to 1-2-2000, the Corresponding State Transport Authority, Madras-5 has merely to countersign the same. In particular, the teamed counsel for the petitioner pointed out to clause VI of the agreement which provides procedure for amendment. Clause VI of the said agreement says 'any clause in this agreement or appendix to this agreement may be amended or a new one added to it at any stage after mutual agreement between the States of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry'. Till the parties to the agreement namely the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Pondicherry amend item 25 of Appendix II namely, Villupuram to Cuddalore (via) Madagadipet, Thookanambakkam and Bahour, the corresponding State transport authority in Tamil Nadu is bound to countersign the same. In this connection, the learned counsel for petitioner referred to the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in the Mohd. Ibrahim Vs. S.T.A, Tribunal, Madras AIR 1970 SC 1542 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as follows:-