IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1748 of 2009. Noor Hasan, S/O Ali Hasan, R/O Village Shankarpur, Rampur, Dehradun, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and 3 others. … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition (M/S) No.1749 of 2009. Jamshed Ali S/O Shamshad, R/O Village Shankarpur, Rampur, Dehradun, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and 3 others. … Respondents. And Writ Petition (M/S) No.1763 of 2009. Prashant Jaiswal, S/O Sri Hari Kishor Jaiswal, R/O 487, Khurbaura Dehradun, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and 3 others. … Respondents. Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for respondents-State. Date October 22, 2009. P.C.: Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 Since the controversy involved in all these three writ petitions is similar and as the impugned advertisement dated 7-10-2009 is under challenge in the petitions, therefore, for the sake of convenience these three writ petitions are being decided by this common order. By means of Writ Petition No. 1748 of 2009 (M/S) and Writ Petition No. 1763 of 2009, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement dated 7-10-2009 by which the applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route Dehradun-Paunta Sahab Vika Vikasnagar and its allied routs were invited by the respondent no.2- State Transport Authority Dehradun for which the meeting is to be held on 23-10-2009 at 11 a.m. in the office of Transport Commissioner Dehradun. In the third writ petition No. 1749 of 2009 (M/S), the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement by which applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route Dehradun- Vikasnagar-Dakpathar and its allied routes were invited for which the meeting is to be held on 23-10-2009. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on the sole ground that there is mandatory requirement as per provisions of Section 88(1) and Section 88(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short the Act) that before grant of permit on the inter State route the reciprocal agreement between two States is mandatory. In the instant case no reciprocal agreement has been executed between the State of Uttarakhand and the State of Uttar Pradesh, as well as State of 3 Uttarakhand and the State of Himanchal Pradesh, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 88(1) and Section 88(5) of the Act, the State Transport Authority has no authority to invite applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the said routes in the absence of reciprocal agreement. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has contended that the petitioners are the existing operators and they have no locus to file the writ petitions. He also contended that it is obligatory on the part of the authority concerned that when the applications for grant of stage carriage permit are granted, the applications have to be considered as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The writ petitions are premature also, as the meeting therefor is to be held on 23rd October 2009. On 14-10-2009, this Court directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1749 of 2009 that he may seek instructions. No instruction has been received in the matter. Learned Additional C.S.C. has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg, etc. etc. Vs. Union of India and others etc. etc. [AIR 1992, Supreme Court, Page 443], wherein it has been held in paragraph 9 that “we, therefore, see no justification for the petitioners to complain against the liberalized policy for grant of permits under the Act.” It is admitted that the petitioners are existing operators. The writ petitions on the behest of existing 4 operators therein complaining that the applications may not be considered in the meeting are not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed outright. All the three writ petitions are dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners today on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 5