IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1547 of 2007 (M/S) S. K. Srivastava ……… Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others ……… Respondents ………. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. …………. Writ Petition No. 1499 of 2007 (M/S) State of Uttarakhand ……….. Petitioner Versus S.K. Srivastava and another ………. Respondents ……….. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for respondent no. 1. ……….. Writ Petition No. 1618 of 2007 (M/S) Uttarakhand Roadways Transport Corporation ………… Petitioner Versus S.K. Srivastava ............... Respondent ............... Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C.J. By this common order, all the above referred three petitions are being disposed of together. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Uttarakhand vide its order dated 09.04.2007 allowed the appeal filed by Mr. S.K. Srivastava- writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1547 of 2007 (M/S) and respondent in other two petitions. Vide the said order, while allowing the said appeal, the Tribunal accepted the application of S.K. Srivastava for grant of Stage Carriage Permit for the route “Dehradun – Ponta Saheb via Vikasnagar”. It is undisputed case of the parties that ‘Ponta Saheb’ falls in the State of Himanchal Pradesh, even through in 50 kms. route between Dehradun and Ponta Saheb, only 1 km., the last stretch, fails in Himachal Pradesh. The fact remains that Under sub-section (1) of Section 88 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, unless the State Transport Authority of Himachal Pradesh or the Regional Transport Authority concerned under whose jurisdiction Ponta Saheb falls, has countersigned the route permit, the permit cannot be granted in favour of S.K. Srivastava, because undisputedly, it is an Inter- State Route Permit. Similarly, under sub-section (5) of Section 88, countersigning of Inter-State Route Permit by the State Transport Authority of that State or Regional Transport Authority concerned has to be linked with and based upon an agreement between the two States to fix the number of permits proposed to be granted or countersigned in respect of each route or area. The aforesaid direction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal contained in the aforesaid order dated 09.04.2007 cannot run counter to be express, specific and binding provisions of law contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (5) of Section 88 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The State Government or the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority concerned in the State of Uttarakhand cannot be, therefore, compelled to act in violation of the aforesaid provisions of law. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, I dispose of all the three petitions by directing the State Transport Authority, Uttarakhand to take all possible steps immediately and without any delay for issuing route permit for “Dehradun-Ponta Saheb via Vikasnagar” Route in favour of S.K. Srivastava, this of course being subject to the fulfillment and compliance of all formalities as well as all requirements of law as enshrined and contemplated in the aforesaid sub- section (1) and sub-section (5) of Section 88 of 1988 Act. The compliance with the aforesaid requirements of law is mandatory as well as binding. All pending applications in all the three writ petitions shall stand disposed of. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 18.12.2008 A