The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of S.64 and S.64A of the Motor Vehicles Act can coexist, and the new S.64A did not intend to be a complete and exhaustive provision for revision against the orders of a Regional Transport Authority.

1. This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari raises the question whether sub-section (2) of S.64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as in force in the area formerly known as the District of Malabar, namely, as amended by Madras Act XXXIX of 1954, has become void by reason of the enactment of the new S.64A by Central Act 100 of 1956. The petitoner is a bus operator, and in August

1955 he obtained a permit from the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode for running a bus from Kozhikode to Sultan's Battery. The second respondent herein was a rival applicant, and he and the other unsuccessful applicants took the matter in appeal and eventually the State Transport Tribunal, Madras, (the appellate authority constituted under S.64 of the Act), after declaring the petitioner ineligible, remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal after considering the claims of the remaining applicants. The matter is still pending with the Regional Transport Authority, and pending its disposal the Authority, after granting two successive temporary permits to the second respondent under S.62 of the Act, granted the third temporary permit to the petitioner on 2-3-1957 "for a period of four months from 4-3-1957 or till a pucca permit is issued for the route whichever is earlier". Meanwhile after the formation of the Kerala State, the Government of Kerala had, by its order S R.O. No. 5 dated 7-1-1957, appointed the District Judge, Trichur, as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of appeals under S.64 of the Act. Against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a temporary permit to the petitioner the second respondent filed a revision petition under S.64 (2) of the Act before this Tribunal, and the Tribunal after hearing the parties passed an order setting aside the grant of the permit to the petitioner on the ground that the grant was prohibited by the first proviso to S, 62 of the Act as amended by Central Act 100 of 1956. It is to quash this order that the present petition has been brought, and the main objection taken is that after the enactment of the new S 64A providing for revision of the orders of a Regional Transport Authority, S.64(2) introduced by Madras Act XXXIX of 1954 has become void under Art.254 of the Constitution at least in so far as revision of the orders of Regional Transport Authorities is concerned.

2. S.64 of the principal Act provided for an appeal to the prescribed authority from certain orders of the State or Regional Authorities. There was no provision in the principal Act for revision, and, by Madras Act XXXIX of 1954, S.64 of the principal Act was renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof and the following introduced as sub-section (2):

"The authority prescribed under sub section (1) for the purpose of hearing appeals may either of its own motion or on application made to it, call for the records of any Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority, as the case may be for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality, regularity or propriety of any order made by such Transport Authority against which no appeal is provided for under sub-section (1) and after examining such records pass such orders in reference thereto as it thinks fit".

The new S.64 A introduced by the Central Act 100 of 1956 reads thus (omitting the two provisos which are not relevant for the present purpose):

"The State Transport Authority may either on its own motion or on application made to it call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a Regional Transport Authority and in which no appeal lies, and if it appears to the State Transport Authority that the order made by the Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal, the State Transport Authority may pass such order in

relation to the case as it deems fit".

The argument is that sub section (2) of S.64 introduced by Madras Act XXXIX of 1954 is