The Government cannot set aside an order of the Central Road Traffic Board on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority's resolution was vitiated by a violation of Section 57(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the order of the Central Road Traffic Board itself does not disclose any infirmity.

( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions challenge the validity of an order of the Government of Andhra (now Andhra Pradesh) dated 9/08/1956 passed in exercise of the revisional power vested in them Under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicle) Act as amended by the Madras State Legislature, Under that section, the State Government may, of Its own motion or on application made to it, call for the records of any order passed or proceeding taken under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act by any authority or officer subordinate to It, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality regularity or propriety of such order or proceeding and after examining such records may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit.

( 2 ) THE facts leading up to these present petitions are these : A new stage carriage route was opened in the East Godavari District from Goganna-mattam to Narasapuram Ferry Via Mulkipalli, Jaggannapeta, Razole and Lakkavaram and applications were invited for the grant of two permits on that route. There were as many as 25 applications and they were considered by the Regional Transport Authority Under Section 57 of the Act at its meeting held on 31-10-1955. That Authority, after hearing the applicants, directed the grant of a permit each to Sri K. Kondalarao of Bhadrachalam and to Sri P. Subbanna of Bandarulanka. Against the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority some of the unsuccessful applicants filed appeals to the State Transport Authority, then known as the Central Road Traffic Board, under See. 64 of the Act. There were in all 24 appeals before the Board and by its order dated 29-2-1956 the Board confirmed the grant made in favour of Sri P. Subbanna but set aside that in favour of Sri K. Kondala Rao and directed the award of the second permit to Sri R. Venkateswara Sarma. Aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, 9 of the appellants preferred revision petitions to the State Government Under Section 64-A of the Act. The Government set aside both the orders of the Regional Transport Authority as well as that of the Central Road Traffic Board and remanded the application, of the 9 petitioners and the. 2 respondents before them for reconsideration by the Regional. Transport Authority. In the writ petitions as originally filed, a point was taken that the State Government had no power to direct a remand in exercise of their revisional power. But since the filing of these petitions, it has been decided by a Division Bench of this court that there is such a power. That point therefore has not been pressed before me.

( 3 ) THE other point taken by the petitioners is that the order of the Government is patently erroneous because it purports to set aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Central Road Traffic Board on the main ground that the Regional Transport Authoritys resolution was vitiated by a violation of the statutory provision of Section 57 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, although the order of the Central Road Traffic Board itself does not disclose any infirmity, Now Sub-section (7) of Section 57 of the Act enacts that"when a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. "the main reasoning of the Government is contained in the last paragraph of their order which runs thus :"from the position set out above, it is clear that the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority constitutes a violation of the statutory provision of Section 57 (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and therefore invalid. In the circumstances and as the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority is not regular, the Government consider that it is not necessary to examine the merits of other revision petitioners. In this view, the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, East Godavari passed at its meeting held on 31-10-1955. . . . . . and the order of the Central Road Traffic Board