S. 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not repugnant to S. 57(8) of the Act, and the Government orders extending the routes of stage carriages were not issued mala fide.

RAMAKRISHNAN, J. :- These six writ appeals arise from the order of Srinivasan, J. in six writ petitions, which comprise of three pairs. Each pair appertains to the grant of variation in the route of stage carriage permit. According to an order of the State Government issued under S. 43-A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in G. O. No. 91 Home dated 05-01-1962, the State Government extended the existing route of 48 miles in length between Udu-kottai to Manapparai, by tacking to it an extra distance of 43 miles, upto Esanattam. W, P. 229 of 1962 was for a writ of certiorari to quash this Government order, and W. P. 230 of 1962 was for a writ of mandamus to direct the Regional Transport authority not to give effect to this Government Order. These two writ petitions are the subject matter of W.A. 106 and 107 of 1962. The second pair (W. P. Nos. 159 and 160 of 1962 leading to W. A. 108 and 109 of 1962) arises out of Government order No. 28 Home dated 3-1-1962, by which a pre-existing route from Sattur to Thiruvengadam was directed to be extended upto Sankarankoil. The two reliefs like those mentioned above were sought in this pair of writ petitions. The third pair (W. P. 53 and 54 of 1962 leading to W. A. 110 and 111 of 1962) deal with Government order No. 4376 Home dated 14-12-1961. by which a pre-existing route Paganeri to Nattarasankottai was varied by extending the route as the Paganeri to Madurai via Nattarasankottai and Sivagangai.

2. We will briefly put down the prior facts which led to the passing of the impugned Government Orders in the three pairs of writ petitions. In W. P. 229 and 230 of 1962, the petitioner, Palaniappa Chettiar had a permit on certain routes in Ramanathapuram and Tiruchirapalli Districts. One M.A.K. Motor Service, the first respondent had a permit from Puddukottai to Manapparai and from Pudukottai to Tiruchi. He applied to the Regional Transport authority for the variation of the route Pudukottai to Tiruchirapalli to be extended to Palayam, and he also applied for the route Pudukottai to Manapparai extended upto Esana-tham. He was prepared to have the extra trips, which he was having on the pre-existing routes, curtailed. When this application was pending before the Regional Transport authority for disposal, the petitioner was one of the objectors, but while the enquiry was pending, the State Government passed the order impugned, purporting to act under S. 43-A(2) of the Act, directing the Regional Transport authority of Tiruchirappalli and Madurai to vary the two routes in the manner requested by the first respondent.

3. In W. P. 159 and 160 of 1962, it was contended that the first respondent in the two petitions had applied to the Regional Transport authority for extending the route, but the application was dismissed in 1956. Then he applied in 1957 and got the extension upto a place called Thiruvengadam. Again in 1960 he applied for an extension from Thiruvengadam to Sankarankoil. The petitioner objected. However, the Regional Transport authority recommended the proposal but it was not approved by the Transport Commissioner. While the matter was at this stage, the Government passed the impugned order under S. 3-A(2) of the Act.

4. In the third pair of the writ petitions, similar grounds were urged to attack the validity of the Government Order permitting the extension of the route.

5. The first contention of the petitioners before Srinivasan, J. was this. Section 43A(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act under which the State Government issued the impugned orders, was a provision introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act by an amendment by the State Legislature in 1954. The Central Legislature, by a subsequent amendment in 1956, Under Act C of 1956, enacted S. 57(8) of Motor Vehicles Act. It was contended that, to the extent that S. 43-A(2) was found to be repugnant to the Central enactment mentioned above, it should be held that the provisions of S. 43-A(2) would stand automatically abrogated. This would make th