The Government's suo motu power under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was not barred by limitation if an application was filed before it which was not maintainable on account of bar of limitation or for some other reason.

( 1 ) THIS Writ Apeal is directed against the order of Gopalakrishna Nair, J. in W. P. No. 212 of 1964. The third respondent in the Writ petition is the Appellant.

( 2 ) THE dispute in the appeal relates to the permit of a stage carriage MDV 1947 which was subsequently renumbered as A. P. V. 482, which belonged to the Motor Works Union of Bheemunipatnam in Visakhapatnam District, which is the third respondent appellant, one Babulal, claiming to but a member of the Union, purported to have sold the vehicle to the first respondent in the appeal (petitioner in the writ petition ). The first respondent and a person by name J. V. Ramanaiah, who purported to be the Secretary of the Union filed in 1958, a joint application to the Regional Transport Authority, Visakhapatnam, for the stage carriage to the 1st respondent (the petitioner ). That application was notified by the Regional Transport Authority calling for objections. The appellant Union, represented by its Secretary, K. Ramanaiah, (different from J. V. Ramamaiah) who signed the Joint application for transfer filed its objections raised are Babulal had no right to sell the stage carriage belonging to the Union, that J. V. Ramanaiah had no locus standi or any capacity to sign the transfer application of behalf of the Unioin, as he had been removed from the post of Secretary on 15-2-1952, and removed from the membership of the Union itself on 30th of July, 1952, ie. , years before the application for transfer was filed. Since the objections where filed two days late, the Regional Transport Authority transferred the vehicle to the first respondent. Felt aggrieved by this order recognising the transfer, the Union represented by its Secretary, K. Ramanaiah filed a revision petition before the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The main contention in the petition was that the transfer application signed by J. V. Ramanaiah as representing the appellant Union is a rank forgery having no concern with the Union at all that the Union was not at all represented at the meeting of the Transport Authority held on 19-7-60 (in which the transfer was recognised) as the notice of the meeting was not served on K. Ramanaiah, the real Secretary, of the Union nor was a copy of the resolution communicated to the Union and that for these reasons the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority transferring the permit favour of the first respondent was vitiated by fraud, collusion and mistake. The Government considered that the transfer of the permit made by the Regional Transport Authority, was void and should be set aside, because that authority was not in a position to conclusively decide as to who actually was the Secretary of the Union. Having set aside the order of transfer, the Government remanded the case back to the Regional Transport Authority, for fresh disposal according to law, having due regard to the representation of the Union. The first respondent filed W. P. No. 442 of 1961 questioning the correctness of this order. The principal contention in the writ petition was that the Government had passed the impugned order, without issuing any notice to the first respondent and giving him an opportunity to represent his case. The writ petition was allowed on that ground and the Government was directed to adjudicate upon the grievance of the Union, after giving due notice and opportunity to the first respondent. When the matter went back to the Government due notice was given to both parties including the first respondent and after hearing both sides, the Government passed an order on 15-1-64, once again setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority as illegal, improper and irregular and remanding the case back to that authority for fresh disposal according law, having due regard to the representation of the appellant Union. While passing this order, the Government once again pointed out that the Regional Transport