Provisions of section 64(2) not void for repugnancy.

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari raises the question whether sub-section (2) of section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1929. as in force in the area formerly known as the District at Malabar, namely, as amended by Madras Act (XXXIX of 1954), has become void by reason of the enactment of the new section 64-A by Central Act (C of 1956). The petitioner 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 Iransport Tribunal, Madras, (the appellate authority constituted under section 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 disposal the Authority, after granting two successive temporary permits to the second respondent under section 62 of the Act, granted the third temporary permit to the petitioner on 2nd March, 1957 “for a period of four months from 4th March, 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 7th January, 1957, appointed the District Judge, Trichur, as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to hear and dispose of appeals under section 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 section 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 section 62 of the Act as amended by Central Act (C 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 section 64-A providing for revision of the orders of a Regional Transport Authority, section 64 (2) introduced by Madras Act (XXXIX of 1954), has become void under Article 254 of the Constitution at least in so far as revision of the orders of Regional Transport Authorities is concerned.

Section 64 of the principal Act provided for an appeal to the prescribed authority from certain orders of the State or Regional Authorities. There was noprovision in the principal Act for revision, and, by Madras Act (XXXIX of 1954), section 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 section 64-A introduced by the Central Act (C 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