BHARGAVA, J. :- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the two orders made by the first respondent Shri Brij Kishore Pateria, Minister of State (Home), Madhya Pradesh, on 20-3-1970 and 11-5-1970, staying the operation of a permit on an inter State route Jashpur-Ranchi via Gumla, which was granted by the State Transport Authority on 7-2-1970, pending consideration of the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 Ganesh Prasad Gupta against the grant of the said permit. The petitioner also seeks a direction restraining the first respondent by a writ of Prohibition or Mandamus from dealing with the appeal preferred by respondent No. 5 against the Order of the State Transport Authority (respondent No. 4) dated 7-2-1970 to the aforesaid effect.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are these. The petitioner and some other bus-operators, including respondent No. 5 Ganesh Prasad Gupta, had made applications for the grant of two single trip permits, i. e., one return trip permit on route Jashpur-Ranchi which lies partly in the State of Madhya Pradesh and partly in Bihar. The State Transport Authority, after giving a hearing to all the applicants, granted the permit to the petitioner by its order dated 7-2-1970. The permit was duly counter-signed by the relevant authority of the State of Bihar on 7-3-1970 and the petitioner started operation of the service on 13-3-1970. He operated the said permit upto 29-3-1970. The fifth respondent Ganesh Prasad Gupta feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Transport Authority filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act and filed an application for staying operation of the permit granted to the petitioner by the State Transport Authority. After hearing the application ex parte, the first respondent granted an ad interim stay order on 20-3-1970. In the application for stay it was mentioned by Ganesh Prasad Gupta that he held a temporary stage carriage permit for return trip daily over the said route and the said permit was valid upto 20-3-1970. It would be seen that the stay order was granted on the very day on which the temporary permit expired. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application (Annexure F) for vacating the said stay order on March 28, 1970. The application was heard in the presence of both the parties and the State Minister confirmed the stay order on 11-5-1970. Feeling aggrieved by the said two orders, this writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs stated above.

3. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 had no authority to hear an appeal or to pass an order in the matter as appellate authority under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is urged that under Section 64 and Rule 72 an appeal against the order of the State Transport Authority lies to the Provincial Government or the Tribunal appointed under sub-rule (b) of Rule 72. It is urged that respondent No. 1 was neither the Provincial Government nor was appointed Tribunal under the said sub-rule and therefore was not competent to hear the appeal or to pass any order in connection with the said appeal.

4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that in exercise of powers conferred by clauses (ii) and (iii) of Article 166 of the Constitution, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh had framed rules of business of the Executive Government and under those rules called "the Madhya Pradesh Government Executive Business Rules" the Governor had allocated amongst the Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers the business of the Government by assigning each Department or any item of business of the Department of the Secretariat. It is urged that these rules were published in the Madhya Pradesh Raj Patra dated 10-4-1969 and according to the allocation of business made by the said notification the business in the Home Department had been assigned to respondent No. 1 Shri Brij Kishore Pateria,