Narayana Pai, C.J.
1. Third respondent Rangavilas Motor Transport. Krishnagiri held an inter-State carriage permit to operate a service from Krishnagiri in Tamil Nadu to Bangalore in Mysore State. It applied to the Regional Transport Authority at Dharmapuri for a variation of the permit by adding another round trip and as required by the rules, added to its application a schedule of proposed timings. The Transport Authority at Dharmapuri granted the application. According to practice, the question of timings was considered at a subsequent date by the Secretary of the Transport Authority, at which, after hearing all persons Including the petitioner, a modified schedule of timings was assigned to the additional round trip permitted by the variation.
2. The third respondent thereafter applied to the State Transport Authority at Bangalore for counter-signature. Counter-signature has been granted. The same has been confirmed upon appeal by the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal.
3. In this Writ Petition directed against the said order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal two contentions are raised by Shri S. J. Srinivasan on behalf of the petitioners. (1) That counter-signature could not have been granted in the absence of an agreement between the two States, fixing the number of routes to be opened up for operation of inter-State services and (2) that both the Mysore State Transport Authority as well as the Revenue Appellate Tribunal have failed to exercise their jurisdiction in not considering the petitioner's objection as to timings although pressed by him before both the said authorities.
4. The first contention is covered by Sub-section (3) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, along with the Proviso appended to it. The sub-section along with the proviso reads as follows:-
'The provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of parties shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of counter-signatures of permits.
Provided that it shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in Section 57 for the grant of counter-signatures of permits, where the permits granted in any one state are required to be counter-signed 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.' The language of the proviso leaves no room for doubt that the only result of the existence of an agreement between two States is to dispense with the procedure prescribed under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act which, in the absence of such an agreement, is obligatory by virtue of the main provision of Sub-section (3) of Section 63 in the case of grant, suspension and revocation of counter-signatures of permits.
5. Shri Srinivasan, however, depends upon certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, : 1SCR474 which according to him. confer upon such an agreement between two States the same status as the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 47 have been given by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of R. Obliswami Naidu v. Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, : 3SCR730 .
6. In the case of Obliswami, the Supreme Court pointed out that Sections 47 and 57 read together indicated that before a stage carriage permit is granted, two independent steps have to be taken, firstly a determination by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3) for the number of stage carriages for which permit can be granted and secondly, the consideration of applications for stage carriage permits, in the routes so opened by the Regional Transport Authority.
7. The principles of this case were also sought to be applied to inter-State routes by the parties to the case of : 1SCR474 . The Supreme Court while rejecting the said contention and pointing out that the provisions of Section 47 must be limited to cases of grant of stage carriage permits within a single region, observed as follows at the end of paragraph 12 and paragraph 14 respectively of the judgments
'The combined effect of Sees. 63, 63-A, 63-B and 63-C is that the Inter-State Commission will deal with inter-State permits. The Central Government, under Section 63-C of the Act is authorised to make rules in regard to the procedure to be followed in considering an application for grant and counter-signature of permits. In the absence of specific rules, the best wav of harmonising the powers and functions is to allow these inter-State authorities to exercise their power within their respective spheres in regard to grant and counter-signature of permits by agreement and accord.'
'We are therefore of opinion that Section 47 (3) of the Act will not apply either to grant or to counter-signature of permits both in the case of inter-State and inter-regional permits. The relevant authorities in two States or two regions will ensure agreements and act in concert as the case may be. The number of services in the region can of course be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority but they will be for the region only. The number of services for inter-regional or inter-State routes beyond the frontier of the region will have to be determined by agreement.'
7-A. All that their Lordships mean by these observations is that an agreement between the two States, in the absence of rules made by the Central Government in regard to the procedure governing the grant of inter-State permits, may provide for matters which are conversed by Sub-section (3) of Section 47 so far as inter-State routes are concerned. But, they did not say that because Obliswami's case. : 3SCR730 held that compliance with Sub-section (3) of Section 47 is obligatory in the case of inter-regional routes or permits, an agreement between two or more States is obligatory in the case of inter-State permits as well.
8. We hold, therefore, that there is nothing in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim to support Shri Srinlvasan's contention that counter-signature could not have been validly granted In the absence of an agreement between two States.
9. So far as the question of timing is concerned the proceedings at which modified timings were assigned to the additional round trip of the third respondent contain the clear record of the fact that the petitioner's representative was present and that all the parties had no objection to the modified timings noted in the said proceedings.
10. We have no reasons to think that the record of the proceedings so made by the Transport Officer is inaccurate or cannot be accepted as indicating the true state of affairs. If such were the position, we do not see how the petitioner can later, with propriety, question the schedule of timings before the counter-signing or the appellate authority.