# A. S. T. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI v. M/S. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS (PRIVATE) LTD - **Citation:** [1960] 3 S.C.R. 764 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1957-07-17 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1958 - **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, Jafer Imam, A. K. Sarkar, K. SuBBA RAO, J.C. Shah - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-s-t-arunachalam-pillai-v-m-s-southern-roadways-private-ltd-1895 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote Motor Vehicles-Stage carriage permits, variation of-] urisdiction of Regional Transport Officer-State Government's power of revision-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of I939l. as amended by the Madras Act, 2oof I948, ss. 44A, 64A. The question for decision in this appeal was whether the Regional Transport Officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Madras State Legislature, had the power to vary the terms of a stage carriage permit granted under that Act. The appellant, holder of a stage carriage permit, applied on July t9, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer for a variation of the route specified in his permit. The Regional Officer after hearing objections rejected the application. The appellant applied to the State Government for revision of the order under s. 64A of the Act and the Government after hearing objections set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and granted variation of the permit as sought for. Against this order the respondent moved the Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge who heard the matter, following a decision of a Division Bench of that Court, held that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application and the State Government for that very reason could have no power in revision to grant the same, and set aside the order of the Madras Government : Held (per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Sarkar and Shah, JJ.). Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, introduced into the Act by the Madras Legislature, although couched in wide language, does not confer on the State Government any original jurisdiction or authorise it to pass in revision an order which the authority, .whose order it seeks to revise, has no jurisdiction to pass. While undoubtedly it can set aside an order of ap auwority or officer - -- • - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 765 subordinate to it passed without jurisdiction under Ch. IV of the c960 Act, it cannot substitute its own order directing a variation of the - . . stage carriage permit granted to a particular person. Sections 43 Arunachalam Pilla• and 48 of the Act make it quite clear that no such authority is v. vested in the State Government and the words "as it thinks fit" Southern Roadways in s. 64A must mean within the ambit of the provisions of the (Private) Ltd. Act. The words "ap.y officer subordinate to him" used in s. 44A of the Act, as amended by the Madras State Legislature are of wide import and cannot be given a restricted meaning and must include an officer in any way subordinate to the Transport Commissioner. The Regional Transport Officer who was admittedly and without doubt administratively subordinate to the Transport Commissioner by virtue of the Madras Government notification dated February 14, 1953, at the time the application was made and was duly authorised in this behalf, had the jurisdiction to vary the conditions of the permit issued to the appellant. Section 44A of the Act did not depend for its operation on any rules to be framed under s. l33A of the Act, which was merely an enabling section, by the Government. Consequently, there can be no doubt that the State Government had the power under s. 64A of the Act to vary the terms of the permit which the Regional Transport Officer had refused to do. B. Veeraswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.LR. 1959 And. Pradesh 413, approved. T. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. P. S. Palani Pillai, A.LR. 1957 Mad. 599, disapproved. · . Per Subba Rao, ].-Section 44A of the Act does not authorise the State Government to appoint subordinate officers to the Transport Commissioner but only enables it to confer statutory powers on officers subordinate to him. ·The State Government has made no rules under s. l33A of the Act making the Regional Transport Officer subordinate to the commissioner. It is, therefore, manifest that neither under the statute nor under any rules made thereunder is the Regional Transport Officer subordinate to the Commissioner ## Text _Characters 0–39,975 of 60,748. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._ 764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] 1960 case and the validity of s. 11 could not in view of Art. 31-A be challenged. The validity of the proviJadab Singh sions for acquisition by the State of the lands of the Himach;i Prnd"h land-owners for compensation determinable in accordAdm;nJStration ance with the provisions of Sch. II is also not liable Shah ]. 1960 April 29. to be challenged under Art. 31 read with Art. 31-A. In that view of the case, all these petitions must fail and they are ordered to be dismissed with costs. Petitions dismissed. A. S. T. ARUNACHALAM PILLAI v. M/S. SOUTHERN ROADWAYS (PRIVATE) LTD. (B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAFER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, K. SuBBA RAO and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Motor Vehicles-Stage carriage permits, variation of-] urisdiction of Regional Transport Officer-State Government's power of revision-Motor Vehicles Act, I939 (4 of I939l. as amended by the Madras Act, 2oof I948, ss. 44A, 64A. The question for decision in this appeal was whether the Regional Transport Officer under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended by the Madras State Legislature, had the power to vary the terms of a stage carriage permit granted under that Act. The appellant, holder of a stage carriage permit, applied on July t9, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer for a variation of the route specified in his permit. The Regional Officer after hearing objections rejected the application. The appellant applied to the State Government for revision of the order under s. 64A of the Act and the Government after hearing objections set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and granted variation of the permit as sought for. Against this order the respondent moved the Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The Single Judge who heard the matter, following a decision of a Division Bench of that Court, held that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application and the State Government for that very reason could have no power in revision to grant the same, and set aside the order of the Madras Government : Held (per Sinha, C. J., Imam, Sarkar and Shah, JJ.). Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, introduced into the Act by the Madras Legislature, although couched in wide language, does not confer on the State Government any original jurisdiction or authorise it to pass in revision an order which the authority, .whose order it seeks to revise, has no jurisdiction to pass. While undoubtedly it can set aside an order of ap auwority or officer - -- • - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 765 subordinate to it passed without jurisdiction under Ch. IV of the c960 Act, it cannot substitute its own order directing a variation of the - . . stage carriage permit granted to a particular person. Sections 43 Arunachalam Pilla• and 48 of the Act make it quite clear that no such authority is v. vested in the State Government and the words "as it thinks fit" Southern Roadways in s. 64A must mean within the ambit of the provisions of the (Private) Ltd. Act. The words "ap.y officer subordinate to him" used in s. 44A of the Act, as amended by the Madras State Legislature are of wide import and cannot be given a restricted meaning and must include an officer in any way subordinate to the Transport Commissioner. The Regional Transport Officer who was admittedly and without doubt administratively subordinate to the Transport Commissioner by virtue of the Madras Government notification dated February 14, 1953, at the time the application was made and was duly authorised in this behalf, had the jurisdiction to vary the conditions of the permit issued to the appellant. Section 44A of the Act did not depend for its operation on any rules to be framed under s. l33A of the Act, which was merely an enabling section, by the Government. Consequently, there can be no doubt that the State Government had the power under s. 64A of the Act to vary the terms of the permit which the Regional Transport Officer had refused to do. B. Veeraswamy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A.LR. 1959 And. Pradesh 413, approved. T. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. P. S. Palani Pillai, A.LR. 1957 Mad. 599, disapproved. · . Per Subba Rao, ].-Section 44A of the Act does not authorise the State Government to appoint subordinate officers to the Transport Commissioner but only enables it to confer statutory powers on officers subordinate to him. ·The State Government has made no rules under s. l33A of the Act making the Regional Transport Officer subordinate to the commissioner. It is, therefore, manifest that neither under the statute nor under any rules made thereunder is the Regional Transport Officer subordinate to the Commissioner in any way within the meaning of s. 44A of the Act. Even assuming that the State Government administratively treated the Regional Transport Officer as a subordinate to the Transport Commissioner and the word 'may' in s. r33A of the Act conferred a discretionary power on it either to frame rules or not to do so, it is wrong to say that it could do administratively what it was empowered to do by rules. If .the Governmoot really intended to make the Regional Transport Officer subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner, the only way in which it could do so was by framing a rule under s. 133A(3) of the Act, CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1958. iQQ 766 StJPRE~1E COURT REPORTS [1960 1960 Appeal from the judgment and order dated -- . .July 17, 1957, of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Arunachalam Pillai f 1956 · · f h · d d No. 110 o · , ar1srng out o t e JU gment an southernvRoadwaysorder dated September 3, 1956, of the said High Conrt (P,ivate) Ltd; in Writ Petition No. 2/1956. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, S. N. Andley, J.B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. V ohra, for the appellant. R. Ganapathy Iyer, N. R. Govindachari and G. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No. 1. 1960. April 29. The Judgment of Sinha, C. J., Imam, Sarkar and Shah, JJ., was delivered by Imam, J., Subba Rao, J., delivered a separate Judgment. Imam J. IMAM, J.-This appeal is on a certificate granted by the Madras High Court as in its opinion it involved a substantial question of law to the effect" whether the delegation to the Regional Transport Officer of the power to vary the conditions of a permit is valid ". The appellant is the proprietor of Sri Vinayagar Transports, Woriyur, Tiruchirapalli. He held a permit to ply his bus on the route Tiruchirapalli Mainguard Gate to Tiruchirapalli l'tailway Station via Palakarai and Round Tana. He applied on July 19, 1954, to the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, for variation of the route so as to ply bis bus between Mainguard Gate and Golden Rock via Palakarai, Round Tana, Tiruchirapalli Railway Station and retrace again to Round Tana and thence to Golden Rock. The Regional Transport Officer notified this application for variation and called for objections. The appellant's application and the objections thereon were heard on July 15, 1955, but the Regional Transport Officer rejected the application. The appellant filed a Revision Petition before the Government of Madras under s. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act, s. 64A having been introduced into that Act by the Legislature of the State of Madras. The MJi,dras Government after having heard objections to the Revision Petition, by its order dated December 28, 1955, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Officer and directed the grant of the variation in the permit of the appellant as prayed for by him. Against the order of the Madras Government the respondent, - - - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 767 the Southern Roadways (Private) Ltd., hereinafter I960 called the respondent, filed a petition under Art. 226 Arunac;;;;;;mPillai of the Constitution in the Madras High Court on v. · January 2, 1956, for the issue of a writ of certiorari to Southern Roadways quash the order of the Government of Madras. (Private) Ltd. When the petition came up for hearing before Rajagopalan, J., the respondent raised a plea which was not taken in the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to the effect that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to grant the variation asked for by the appellant and the Government had likewise no jurisdiction to grant, in revision, what the Regional Transport Officer himself could not have granted. This plea was made on account of a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955, arrived at since the filing of the petition, wherein it was held that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with an application for variation of the conditions of a permit. Rajagopalan, J., following the decision in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955 held that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application for variation and that it followed that the Government of Madras had equally no jurisdiction to grant the variation on a revision petition filed against the order of the Regional Transport Officer. The learned Judge accordingly set aside the order of the Government of Madras dated December 28, 1955, without going into the other contentions raised by the respondent in its petition under Art. 226. The appellant appealed against the decision of Rajagopalan, J. Although in the appeal the correctness of the decisio.n in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955 was questioned it was not pressed because of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 56 and 57 of 1956 decided on April 12, 1957. The argument in the present case therefore proceeded on the footing that the Regional Transport Officer, Tiruchirapalli, had no jurisdiction to deal with the appellant's application for variation. In the High Court on behalf of the appellant it was urged that the respondents had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Tra.nsport Officer 'and Imam]. 76S SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] 196o therefore could not at a later stage obtain the discreA h- 1 p·zi . tionary writ of certiorari on the ground that there runac a am • •• 1 k f . . d' . I d d h v. was ac o iurrn 1ction. t was next conten e t at southern Roadways even if the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdic- (Priv_•!•l Ltd. tion to deal with the appellant's application for variation the order of the Government of Madras which Imam J. was sought to be quashed could not be said to be one passed without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction because the Government had undoubtedly power to pass the order in question under s. 64A of the Act. Both these contentions were rejected and the decision of Rajagopalan, J., was affirmed. The High Court, however, granted a certificate that the case was a fit one for appeal to this Court. The principal question for consideration in this appeal is whether the Regional Transport Officer had the power to vary the conditions of a permit to ply a stage carriage. In order to decide that question some sections of the Act, as amended by the Legislature of the State of Madras, will require consideration, particularly the provisions of s. 44A. But before we proceed to do that the other two questions which were decided against the appellant by the High Court may first be considered. In our opinion, although the respondent had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Officer and had not in his petition under Art. 226 in the High Court taken the objection that that officer had no jurisdiction to vary the conditions of a permit, the High Court acted rightly in allowing the respondent to urge that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to vary the conditions of a permit. It was not until the decision of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 107 of 1955 that it became the considered view of that Court that the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to make any such variation. When the law was so declared by the High Court it could not reasonably be said that the High Court erred in allowing the respondent to take this point although in its petition under Art. 226 the point had not been taken. This was obviously because the decision of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1Q7 of 1955 h!j.d not been gfren at the time of the filing of the petition I \ , - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 769 Since the question went to the root of the matter and 1960 it involved the question. whether the Regional Trans-A h-- offi h d . . d' t' t th d't' f runac alam Pillai port cer a 3uns 10 10n o vary e con l 10ns o a permit the High Court, faced with a Division Bench southern vRoadways decision of its own on the matter, could not very well (Private) Ltd. refuse permission to the respondent to rely on that decision in support of its petition questioning the Imam J. validity of the order of the Government of Madras made under s. 64A of the Act. It had been strongly urged in this Court on behalf of the appellant that on a proper construction of s. 64A of the Act there was ample power in the Government of Madras to make an order directing the variation sought in the conditions of the permit of the appellant, even though the Regional Transport Officer had no jurisdiction to do so. Section 64A empowered the Government of Madras to pass such orders as it thought fit with respect to any order passed or proceedings taken under Chapter IV of the Act by any authority or officer subordinate to it for the purpose of satisfying itself of the legality, regularity or propriety of the order or proceeding, when it had called for the records of the case. In our opinion, s. 64A is a power vested in the State Government by way of revision of orders passed under Chapter IV of the Act by any authority or officer subordinate to it. This is not a power which the State Government could exercise by way of original jurisdiction which was vested elsewhere. In our opinion, although the words " may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit " are wide in expression, they do not mean that the State Government could pass an order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction which the authority whose order the Government was revising had no jurisdiction to pass. The State Government could undoubtedly set aside an order of an authority or officer subordinate to it who had no jurisdiction to pass the order in question under Chapter IV but it could not substitute for that order its own order directing the variation in the conditions of the permit of the appellant. It is significant thats. 43 which deals with the power of the State Government to control 770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] z960 A h- 1 P"l . Road Transport does not mention that such a Govern- '"""" a am Ka• h h h d" • f • .v. ment as t e power to vary t e con it10ns o a permit, Southem Roadways although the various powers conferred by that section (P•ivate) Ltd. are fully specified, including tho power to vary the Imam j. notification issued under the section. If the Act had intended to give the power to the State Government to vary the conditions of a stage carriage permit granted to a particular person it would have specified such a power in this section. The authority which is empqwered to vary the conditions of a permit is stated in s. 48A which certainly is not the State Government. Under the Act, therefore, no such authority was vested in the State Government and the words in s. 64A " as it thinks fit" must mean within the ambit of the provisions of the Act. Coming now to the question whether the Regional Transport Officer had the power to vary the conditions of the permit of the appellant it would be necessary to construe s. 44A of the Act. Before we proceed to do so, reference to certain sections of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would be necessary as well as certain refovant facts. Section 42 prohibits the owner of a transport vehicle to use or permit its use, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter-signed by a Regional or Provincial Transport Authority. Reference to s. 43 has already been made which deals with the power of the State Government to control road transport. Section 43A empowers the State Government to issue such orders and directions of a general character as it may consider necessary in respect of any matter relating to road transport to the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority and such Authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions. Section 44 empowers the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette to constitute a State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities, the former to exercise and discharge the functions specified in sub-s. (3) and the latter to exercise powers as may be specified in the notification in respect of each Regional Transport Authority. Section 44A which is incorporated by the Madras Amending Act reads: , -- 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT H.EPORTS 771 "The State Government may appoint a State r960 Transport Commissioner and notwithstanding any- -- th. t · d · h" A t b 'fi · · Atunachalam Pillai mg con ame m t is c , may, y not1 cat10n m v. the Fort St. George Gazette, authorize such Comm is- southern Roadways sioner or any officer subordinate to him, to exercise (Private) Ltd. and discharge in lieu of any other authority prescribed by or under this Act such powers and funcImam f. tions as may be specified in the notification". Section 45 deals with applications for a permit and directs that they shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle. Section 46 states the matters which shall be stated in the application for a permit. Section 47 provides the procedure to be observed by a Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for stage carriage permits. Section 48 empowers a Regional Transport Authority to restrict the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region and to impose conditions on such permits. One of these conditions is contained in cl. (d)(ii-a) which is to the effect that stage carriage or stage carriages shall be used only on specified routes or in a specified area. Section 48A provides for the alteration of the conditions attached to a permit and reads: "Any conditions attached to a stage carriage permit in pursuance of cl. (d) of s. 48 may at "A.ny time be varied, cancelled or added to by the State Transport Authority, provided that this power shall not be exercised to the prejudice of ,t;he holder of the permit without giving not less than three months' notice to him." Section 133A(l) authorises the State Government for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act to establish a Motor Vehicles Department and to appoint as officers thereof such persons as it thinks fit. Sub-s. (3) authorises the State Government to make rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the Motor Vehicles Department of their functions and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power to prescribe the uuifor.w. to be 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960) r96o worn by them, the authorities to which they shall be subA h- 1 p·ii .ordinate, the duties to be performed by them, the runac a am 1 •• (" l d" th · bl b l" v. powers me u mg e powers exerc1sa e y po ice southern Roadways officers under the Act) to be exercised by them and the (Private) Ltd. conditions governing the exercise of such powers. No Imam j. rules, in fact, had been framed. It will be seen from what has been stated that it is ·the State Transport Authority and no other which is authorised under s. 48A to vary the conditions of a permit of a stage carriage. Section 44A, however, authorises the State Government to appoint a State Transport Commissioner. It further provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act the State Government may by notification authorise the State Transport Commissioner or any officer subordinate to him to exercise and discharge in lieu of any other authority prescribed by or under the Act such powers and functions ·as may be specified in the notification. By this section, although under s. 48A it is the State Transport Authority which can vary the conditions of a stage carriage permit, the State Government could, notwithstanding the provisions of that section, authorise the State Transport Commissioner to exercise such powers in lieu of the State Transport Authority. It could also confer such power on an officer subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner. The vital question for determination is, how are the words " any o:ffi.er subordinate to him" to be construed. In construing these words the provisions of s. 133A will have to be kept in mind as it was contended on behalf of the respondent that these sections should be read together. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that under s. 133A (3) as to who was subordinate to whom in the Motor Vehicles Department had to be prescribed by rules. As no rules had been framed it could not be said that the Regional Transport Officer was subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of T. Krishnaswamy Mudaliar v. P. S. Palani Pillai (1) had occasion to consider whether a gegional Transport Officer was subordinate to the State Transport Commissioner for the purposes of the Act. Three {r) A.I.R. 19'7 Mad. 599, - - lo- ' -· 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 773 views were pressed before it. The first view, which 1960 w .. as favoured by a Division Bench of that Court, was A -h 1 p·•.z . re ' h d b d' , . runac a am '' - the State) of Madras. This Code also contains the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, hereinafter called the Rules. The Rules came into force on April I, 1940. Under Rule 3(c) "Central Road Traffic Board" or "Central Board" means the Provincial Transport Authority constituted for the State of Madras under sub-s. (I) of s. 44 of the Act. This definition obviously must have been inserted in the Rules after the constitu- ,-1 tion of the Prov incial Transport Authority in the year 1947. This definition was again altered on December 20, 1955, and for the words "Central Road Traffic Board" or "Central Board " the words " State Transport Authority" was substituted. On the same date a further definition was added to the Rules by the insertion of cl. (m) in Rule 3 which was to the effect that" Trans- ~ port Department " means the Motor Vehicles Department set up under s.133Aofthe Act. The Government of Madras issued a Notification No. G. 0. MS. 527 on February 14, 1953, wherein it was stated that prior 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 775 to the decision of the Madras High Court in Writ .I960 Petition No. 806 of 1951 the Regional Transport A , -h -1 r·rr . A . . . . h ll h runac a am i at uthorities were varymg w enever necessary a t e v. conditions of the permits, but according to the deci- Southern Ra(ldways sion of the High Court in that petition the Regional (Private) _Ltd. Transport Authorities could not vary the existing conditions of a stage carriage permit imposed under s. 48(d) of the Act and that it was only the State Transport Authority which could do so under s. 48A of the Act. The decision of the High Court resulted in great administrative inconvenience as all applications for variation of conditions of permit would have now to be made to the State Transport Authority which involved delay and inconvenience to operators. It further stated that the Government of India had under consideration a proposal to amend s. 48 of the Act so as to empower the Regional Transport Authorities to vary all conditions of permits, but some time would be taken to carry out the necessary legislation. Pending the legislation the Government of Madras had decided to empower Regional Transport Officers, as a temporary measure, to vary conditions of permits now dealt with by the State Transport Authority. The notification further went on to say that in exercise of the powers conferred by s. 44A of the Act the Governor of Madras authorized the Regional Transport Officers and the Secretary, Road Traffic Board, Madras, to exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the State Transport Authority under ss. 48A, 51A and 56A of the Act. On October 20, 1955, the Government of Madras issued a further notification reorganizing the Motor Transport Department with reference to the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1944 (Act XXXIX of 1944). According to this notification a Member of the Board of Revenue should be appointed as Transport Commissioner under s. 44A of the Act and the present post of Transport Commissioner should be abolished ; that an officer of the Transport Department should be appointed as State Transport Authority who will also be the Assistant Transport Commissioner ; that the post of Secretary, Central Road Traffic Board, should be re~ designated as Secretary, State Transport Authority ; Imam]. 776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] 196o that Collectors of districts in the mofussil and the -- 1 Commissioner of Police in the City of Madras should Arunachalam Pi /aib • d R · 1 T A h ' ' d v. e appomte as eg10na ransport ut onties un er south"n Roadwavs s. 44 of the Act; that the Regional Transport Officers (P,ivate) Ltd.· in the mofussil and the Deputy Commissioner of Police Imam ]. (Traffic & Licensing) in the Madras City should be the Secretaries to the Regional Transport Authorities and that an officer of the grade of a District Judge should be appellate authority prescribed under s. 64(1) of the Act, as amended, to deal with appeals against the orders of the Regional Transport Authorities and be designated as the State Transport Appellate Tribu. nal. Under cl. (2) of the notification the Member of the Board of Revenue to be appointed as Transport Commissioner would be the Head of the Transport Department and would have general responsibility for administration of the Act. He would be empowered by the Government under s. 44A to exercise the powers now exercised by the State Transport Authority under sub-ss. 3(a) and (c) and (4) of s. 44 of the Act. In the discharge of these functions the Transport Commissioner will have administrative control over the organisation at present working under the Transport Commi~sioner. Under cl. (4) (ii) the powers under ss. 48A, 51A and 56A of the Act to alter the conditions of stage carriage permits, contract carriage permits and public carriers permits, exercised by the Regional Transport Officers, would hereafter be exer. cised by the Regional Transport Authorities. Under cl. 5(i) the Regional Transport Officer would he the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority and ·in that capacity he would assist the Regional Transport Authority in the performance of the functions prescribed in cl. (4). It is, however, to be remembered that when on July 19, 1954, the appellant applied to the Regional Transport Authority for the variation of the conditions of his permit, the Notification No. G.O. MS. 527 dated February 14, 1953, of the Government of Madras was in force by virtue of which Regional Transport Officers were authorised to discharge the functions of the State Transport Authority under ss. 48A, 51 A anrl 56A of the Act. ....... ,' I , -- - ) J~ 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 777 In paragraph 6 of the statement of the case filed by z96o the respondent it was stated that in the exercise of A ; 1ru . the powers conferred under s. 44(1) of the Act the rnnac ~.am ' '" Government of Madras constituted Provincial and Southern Roadways Regional Transport Authorities. It also set up a .(Private) Ltd. Motor Transport Department with a Transport ComImam 1. missioner as its head and officers in t,hat Department, in the lower scale, were the Regional Transport Officers who functioned as the Secretaries of the respective Regional Transport Authorities called the Road Traffic Board. It was further stated in paragraph 7 that although a Regional Transport Officer was a su.bordinate of the Transport Commissioner on the administrative side he could not be held to be a subordinate officer within the meaning of s. 44A. The State Government may establish a Motor Vehicles Department and appoint officers thereto under s. 133A, but mere appointment of officers in that Department could not invest them with statutory functions to be discharged under the Act and under the Rules. Sec. tion 133A contemplates framing of rules to regulate the discharge by officers of the department of their functions as also to state the authorities to whom such officers shall be subordinate and the duties to be performed by them. It was not suggested that any duties or powers of a statutory nature had been vested in the Tra.nsport Commissioner; nor was there any rule showing that the Regional Transport Officer is a subordinate of the Transport Commissioner for the purposes of the Rules. 'l'he statement of the case further stated that s. 44A required a functional subordination and not merely an administrative one. The Madras Financial Code, Vol. II, Appendix I, shows the list of Heads ofDepartments of the Government of Madras. The Transport Commissioner is shown as the Head of a Department. The Half-Yearly List of Gazetted Officers in the Transport Department corrected upto the 31st of July, 1955, shows that the Transport Commissioner is also the Chairman, Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, and subordinate to him are the Secretary, Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, Assistant Secretary, Road Traffic Board, Madras and Regional Transport Officers. 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] z96o There can be no question therefore that the Regional A h- 1 p·ii . Transport Officers arc officers subordinate to the runae a am • "'T C · • I • h £ h" v. ransport omm1ss10ner. t 1s per aps or t 1s reason sou