A SEKAR Vs. V VIJAY KAMALRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeals arise against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 2. 7. 2002 made in W. P. No. 4541 of 2002, which was filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 3. 1. 2002 refusing to grant temporary permit sought for by the writ petitioner to ply his vehicle from Bangalore to Harur.

(2.) CONCEDEDLY, there is no inter-state agreement for the impugned route, viz. Bangalore to Harur. Even though the original authority, viz. the third respondent, State transport Authority, Karnatak a Stat e granted permit, there was no counter signature by the Tamil Nadu State insofar as the route in Tamil Nadu is concerned. Pending such counter signature, the writ petitioner sought temporary permit and the same was refused by the State Transport Authority by proceedings dated 3. 1. 2002. The writ petitioner had not chosen to prefer any appeal before the State Transport appellate Tribunal under Section 89 (1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but had chosen to approach this Court directly under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

(3.) IT is a settled law that in a case of Inter-State routes, the State Government concerned are supposed to deliberate and decide the routes to be opened as inter-State routes by determining the number of trips each route was to have and prescribe other conditions for the smooth functioning of the Act to achieve its objective, which is claimed to be a social welfare legislation and in the absence of any reciprocal agreement between the States, grant of inter-State permit is illegal and without jurisdiction, vide Ashwani Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority ( (1999) 8 SCC 364 ).