# STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS v. SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 841
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-08-09
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, D. G. Palekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-rajasthan-and-ors-v-shri-noor-mohammad-5721
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Motor Vehicl<" Act \4 of 1939) ss. 43 and 44(3) (b)-When State
Transport Authority
ca~z take
over functions of
Regional ]'ransport
Authority.
The respondent submitted an application to the Regional Transport
~uthority for the grant of a stage carriage .p~rmit on nn intcr~rcgio~i::il and.
rnter-state route.
The Regional Transport Authority declined to consider
the application, because, bv a resolution of the State Transport Authority,
the State Transport Authority took over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority with regard to inter-state routes.
Jn a writ petition filed
by the respondent the High Court hel<l, (1) that under s. 44(3) (b) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authoritv was entitled
to perform the duties of a Regional Trz.1sport Authority in only two
cases, namely, (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority in
a region and the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform :he
duties of the Regional Transport Authoritv and (b) when the Regional
Transport Authority is functioning only in respect of inter-regional routes
and on the request of the Regional rfransport Authority; and (2)
that
the resolution of the State Transport Avthority taking over the furictio~""ts
of the Regional Transport. Authority \VJ.s confrary to the direction giv\::11
by the State under s. 43 the High Court therefore, directed the Rc\'.!ion~l
Transport Authority to dispose o-f the application of the respondent.-
Dismissing the appeal to th!s Court,
HELD: (I) Updcr s. 44(3)(b) the State Transport Authority is en·
titled to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in three
contingencies, namely (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority
functioning, (b) when the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform
the <lutics of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of any route
common to t'\'O or more regions, and (c) \Vhere
the
State rfransport
Authority is requested by the Regional "fran:~1~ort Allthoritv to perform
those duties in respect of an inter-regional route. f845H-846A]
There is no 1i111itation in the case of the first continμcncy.
When a
Regional Transport Authority is not 'functioning,
the
State
Transport
Authority shall perform the duties of a Regional Tran,port Authority. The
provisions of lhe Act with regard to lssue of permits are i;i the publi:::
interest, and it will ]cad to great public inconvenience if in th';! ah'.;cnce
0f the Regional Transport Authority the public is left entirely to the mercy
of the State Transport Authority \vhether it will exercise its discretion to
pcr'form the duties of the Regional rrrnnsport .l\uthority or not. The other
two contingencies ho\vever are limited in their ·scope.
Since the State
Transport Authority is for the whole State and has wider jmisdiction than
the sep·a,rate regional authorities it n1ay in a fit case take over the functions
of the Regional Transport Authority \Vith regard to any route common to
hvo or more region"; and similarly, \Vhen a request is made by the ~cgional
Transoort Authority the State Transport Authority would be entitled t~
perform the duties of the Regional Transport. Auth~rity in resP<;ct. of an
inter~regional route.
Since two type.;; of cont1ngenc1cs---one unhm1ted tl\
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R
scope and .the other limited-are combined in one place the word "and'
has been used after the first oontingency. The High Court's construction
Of the section that 'then~ are only two contingencies as mentioned by it
is erroneous. r846C-}{; 847A-C]
. Povnam Chond v. State of Rajasthan, I.LR. 11 Raj. 1031, approved,
(2) But this power under cl. (b) c,ould only be discharged by the State
Transp>Jft Authority, .('i) subject to any directions given to it under s. 43
of the Act by the State Government; and (ii) save as otherwise expressly
prolided by or under the Act .. f,8470-E]
(a) It cannot be contended that since the Regionat Transport Au tho .
. 'rilY. is a separate authority on which dut

## Text

A
B
c
J)
F
G
H
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
v.
SHRI NOOR MOHAMMAD
August 9, 1972
84 I
[K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ.]
Motor Vehicl<" Act \4 of 1939) ss. 43 and 44(3) (b)-When State
Transport Authority
ca~z take
over functions of
Regional ]'ransport
Authority.
The respondent submitted an application to the Regional Transport
~uthority for the grant of a stage carriage .p~rmit on nn intcr~rcgio~i::il and.
rnter-state route.
The Regional Transport Authority declined to consider
the application, because, bv a resolution of the State Transport Authority,
the State Transport Authority took over the functions of the Regional Transport Authority with regard to inter-state routes.
Jn a writ petition filed
by the respondent the High Court hel<l, (1) that under s. 44(3) (b) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the State Transport Authoritv was entitled
to perform the duties of a Regional Trz.1sport Authority in only two
cases, namely, (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority in
a region and the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform :he
duties of the Regional Transport Authoritv and (b) when the Regional
Transport Authority is functioning only in respect of inter-regional routes
and on the request of the Regional rfransport Authority; and (2)
that
the resolution of the State Transport Avthority taking over the furictio~""ts
of the Regional Transport. Authority \VJ.s confrary to the direction giv\::11
by the State under s. 43 the High Court therefore, directed the Rc\'.!ion~l
Transport Authority to dispose o-f the application of the respondent.-
Dismissing the appeal to th!s Court,
HELD: (I) Updcr s. 44(3)(b) the State Transport Authority is en·
titled to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in three
contingencies, namely (a) where there is no Regional Transport Authority
functioning, (b) when the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform
the <lutics of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of any route
common to t'\'O or more regions, and (c) \Vhere
the
State rfransport
Authority is requested by the Regional "fran:~1~ort Allthoritv to perform
those duties in respect of an inter-regional route. f845H-846A]
There is no 1i111itation in the case of the first continμcncy.
When a
Regional Transport Authority is not 'functioning,
the
State
Transport
Authority shall perform the duties of a Regional Tran,port Authority. The
provisions of lhe Act with regard to lssue of permits are i;i the publi:::
interest, and it will ]cad to great public inconvenience if in th';! ah'.;cnce
0f the Regional Transport Authority the public is left entirely to the mercy
of the State Transport Authority \vhether it will exercise its discretion to
pcr'form the duties of the Regional rrrnnsport .l\uthority or not. The other
two contingencies ho\vever are limited in their ·scope.
Since the State
Transport Authority is for the whole State and has wider jmisdiction than
the sep·a,rate regional authorities it n1ay in a fit case take over the functions
of the Regional Transport Authority \Vith regard to any route common to
hvo or more region"; and similarly, \Vhen a request is made by the ~cgional
Transoort Authority the State Transport Authority would be entitled t~
perform the duties of the Regional Transport. Auth~rity in resP<;ct. of an
inter~regional route.
Since two type.;; of cont1ngenc1cs---one unhm1ted tl\
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R
scope and .the other limited-are combined in one place the word "and'
has been used after the first oontingency. The High Court's construction
Of the section that 'then~ are only two contingencies as mentioned by it
is erroneous. r846C-}{; 847A-C]
. Povnam Chond v. State of Rajasthan, I.LR. 11 Raj. 1031, approved,
(2) But this power under cl. (b) c,ould only be discharged by the State
Transp>Jft Authority, .('i) subject to any directions given to it under s. 43
of the Act by the State Government; and (ii) save as otherwise expressly
prolided by or under the Act .. f,8470-E]
(a) It cannot be contended that since the Regionat Transport Au tho .
. 'rilY. is a separate authority on which duties referred to in cl, (b) have
been imposed by other piovisions of the Act there is express provision by
l)f ·under the Act and that therefore the State Transport Authority would
be· disentitled ·to take over these functions. If the expression is so construed
the very object of the clause providing 'for the exerciBe by the State Trans·
port Authority of the powers of the Regional Transport Authority would
lie frustrated. Therefore, the expression "save as otherwise, expressly provided by or under the Act." would, in the context, mean "save aa expreuly
barred by or under the Act." Since there is no express provision whicb
bars the performance by the State Transport Authority of the duties referred to in cl. (b), the State Transport Authority would not be barred
from performing those duties. [847F-ll; 848A'-C]
(b) However, s. 44(3) provides that the State Transport Authority is
required to give elfeot .to any direction issued by the State Government.
The section gives the State Government power to control road transport
and to that end is e3titled, from time to time, by notification in the Official
Gazette, to issue directions to the State Transport Authority in four apeci·
fied cases. One of them is contained in cl. (iv) of sub-s. (I), and, in the
preoent case, the State Government has, by notific\ation, issued directions
under that •uh-section to the State Transport Authority to the effect that
the Regional Transport Auhority was to invite applications for grant of
pcrrni.t-' on inter-state routes or to select applicants for the grant c! permits.
Thi• direction is binding on the State Transport Authority and since it has
to give efiect to the direction, it cannot 'function contrary to it. Therefore,
the resolution of the State Transport Authority taking over the functionll
of the Regional Transport Authority with regard to inter-state routes was
contrary to the direction and hence invalid. [848C.H; 849A-C]
CIVIL APPLLATE JURISDICTION: c. A, No, 1882 (N) of
1970.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order date
April 14, 1970 of the Rajasthan High
Court in
D.B.W.P.
.No. 453 of 1969.
Narayan Sinha, Solicitor-General for India
and
and
K.
Baldev Mehta for the appellants.
B, p, Maheshwari, for the respondent.
A
c
E
G
The Judgment of the Court w<is delivered by
u
Palekat-, J. Orders have been already passed dismissing the
appeal and the reasons will be given now.
A
ll
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJASTHAN v. NOOR MOHAMMAD (Palekar, J.)
843"
This appeal arises out of an ord·~r passed by the High Court
of Rviasthan in Writ Petition No. 453 of 1969. The respondent
Noor Mohammad, a resident of Jaipur, submitted an application
on 11-3-1968 to the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur,
f1•r the .2rant of a non-temporary stage. ~Drriage permit on JaipurRohtak
route
via
Shahpura-Karputli,
Behror-Jahar-Rewari.
Objections were invited but no obr~ctions were
filed. Besides
the respondent, however, the State Road Transport Corporation
and two other pesrons had applied for the gran·t of permit· on
this route. These two other persons were also absent. Only the
respondent and the Corporation were present
The Regional
Transport Authority did not take the application of ithe resJ)l>ndent into consideration by reason of a resolution passed by
the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, which was in fo~ce ..
That Resolution dated January .27,1969 and numbered Tr.S.T ..
A/69/31743 was duly notified and published on Febr[1ary 6,
1969 as follows :
"In exercise of. the powersunder section 44
and
section 3(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act the
State
Transport Authority, Rajasthan
resolves
that with
effeot from the date of the publication of this resolution
in the official
Gazette, ( 1)
The State
Transport
Authority shall hereinafter-grant all types of permits,
renewals, transfers etc. on inter-regional
and inrerstatal routes. In respect of these routes State Transport
Authority shall perform all the duties hitherto being
performed by the Regional Transport Authority; (2) All
types of permits on inter-statal routes shall be countersiimed by the State Transport Authority."
Relying principally on the above resolution
the
Regionaf
·Transport Authori~ Jait>ur, declined to considqr the respon;-
dent's application, which it is admitted, was for an inter reltionllt
and inter-state route.
Aggri~\-ed by the decision, the respondent filed the above
Writ Petition ·challenging the validity of the above resolution of
the State Transport Authority. The challenge was two-fold. Onewas that under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act, 193Q
dealing with the control of transport vehicles it was the Regional
Trans.port Authority which could entertain such an
application
and not the State Transport Allthority. It was true that under
section 44(3) the State Transport Authority was
entitled
to
perfonn. the .duties of the Regional Transport under certain conditioPs but this was not a case answering those conditions. In
the second place, it was contended that there was an agreement
between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana about the grant
of Inter-State Permits and to order to give effect to that a~ree-
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] l S.C.R
A"
ment, '.he State Government had issued •to the State Transport
Authonty on Dece_mber 14, 1966 a direction under section 43 (1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act to the effect that the Regional Tra:isport Authority was to invite applications for stage. carriage or
public carrier Permits and that it had to select 111'Plications for
the grant of pennits keeping in view the cQnditions laid down by
the Inter. State Transport Commission in this behalf. The casei B
of these selected candidates were then· to be referred
to
the
Transport authorities of the other Sates concerned for granting
the counter-signature und~r the agreement.
It was contended
that the .State Transport Authority was bound
to
obey this
direction issued by the State Government
under
section
43 (1) with regard to
the grant of Inter State
p~rmits C
and, therefore, the resolution of the State' Transport Authority
dated January 27, 1960 was illegal being contrary to the direction
given by the State
The cont.ention of 'the respondent was upheld by the Higla
Court on both these grounds and a direction was issued to tbe
Regional Transport Authority •to dispose of the application of O
the mspondent for the _grant of permit on Jaipur-Rohtak route
in accordance with the law. It is from L"s Order that the present appeal has been filed.
Chapter IV of ·the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains detailed provisions with re_gard to the control of the control of l ransport vehicles.
Two· transport authorities are constituted under
I!!
section 44. One is the State Transport Authority which is constituted for the whole State and it is to exercise and discharge
the powers and functions specified jn sub-section (3). The other
authority is the Regional Transport Authority. The area cif th·~
State is divided into regions and a region is allotted to the control of the Regional Authority.
These Regional Transport F
Authorities had to exercise the powers and functions conferred
on them by several other sections in Chapter IV.
Sub-sectioti
( 3) & ( 4) of Sec<tion 44 are as follows :
( 3) A State Transport Authority (shall give effect
to any directions issued under Section 43, and subject
to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or
II
under this Act) shall exercise and discharge throughout
the
State
the
following
powers
and
functions,
namely :-
(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities
and
nolicies of the Regional Transport Authorities,
if any, of the State;
(b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport
Authority where there is no
such
Authority
H
J
A
B
c
D
r
G
R
RAJASTHAN v. NOOR MOHAMMAD (Palekar, J.)
845.
aQd, if it thinks fit or if so required by a
Regional Transport Authority, to. perform those
dU'ties in respect of any route common to two
or more regions;
( c) to settle all disputes and decides all matters 011
which differences of opinion arise betw::en
Regional Transport Authorities; and
(d) to discharge such other functions as may be
prescribed.
( 4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging
the powers and functions specified in sub-section t 3),
a State Transport Authority may, sub.iect to such conditions as may be prescribed, issue directions to any
Regional Transport· Authority and
the
Regional
Transport
Authority
shall
(in
the
discharge
of its functions under this Act, give effect to and) be
guided by such directions."
It is clear from the above provisions that the State Transpolt
Authority is a superior Authority with jurisdiction over the whol•·
ef the State while the Regional Transport Authority is subordinate to it with its jurisdiction generally confined to. the region foe
which it is appointed.
It is also clear from sub-section (3)
clause (b) that the State Transport Authority can perform thcduties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority undoc
certain circumstances.
The High Court has held on the construction of clause (b) aforesaid that
the
State
Transport
Authority is entitled to perform the duties of a Regional Tra111port Authority in only two cases namely (I) Where there is n•
Regional Transport Authority in a region and the State Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform the duties of the Regional
Transport Authority, and (2) where the Regional
Transport
Authority is functioning the State Transport Authority can discharge the functions of the Regional Transport Authority only
in respect of intler-reg'.ional .routes and on t!le request of the
Regional Transport Authority. In thus construing section 44(3)
(b) the l&arned Judges have departed from the view taken by
that High Court earlier in Poonam Chand v. s·ate of Rajasthmc
'md Another('). It was held in that ca•e that the provision ia
section 44(3) (b) r.ontemplated three contingencies under whiclt
the State Transport Authority can act to perform the duties of
the Regional Transport Authority, viz. (I) where there is n•
such a~thoritv; (2) Where the' State Transport Authority itself
thinks fit to perform those duties in respect of anv route comma•
to two or more regions; and (3) where the
State Transp01it,
I) I.LR. II Raj 1031.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R
Authori'ty is so required by the Regional Transport Authority
A
lo perform th~se duties in respect of any such common route.
We do not tlunk that there was any sufficient reason for the
learned Judges in the present case to depart from the view which
had beel!- taken by an earlier division bench of that court. Moreover, neither grammar nor convenience compels ithe construction
~dopted b~ the learn~ Judges.
The State Tr'lnsport Authority
lJ
1s a supenor Authority, and if for any reason no
Regional
Transport Authority is functioning, one does not see why the
.duties and functions of the Regional Transport Authority should
not be left to be performed by the State Transport Authority.
The provisions in the Act with regard to the issue of permits
and the .like are made in the public interest and it will lead to c
great inconvenience if in the absence .of a Regional Transport
Authority the public should be entirely left to the mercy of the
State Transport Aut'lority whether it will exercise its discretion
to perform the duties and functions of the Regional Transport
Authority or not. In our opinion, the first contingency is the one
when a Regional Transport Authority is not functioning.
In
that contingency, all the duties and functions of the Regional
D
T~sport Authority are expected to be carried out by the State
Transport Authority. Then we have two more contingencies in
which the State-Transport Authority may take over the duties and
functions ·of the Regional Transport Authority.
Both
these
.contingencies arise in a situ?'ion where the duties of the Regional
Transport Authority have to be performed in respect of any route
E
common to two or more regions.
These two contingencies are
(2) if it thinks fit, or ( 3) if so required by tlie Regional Transport Authority, to perform those .duties in respect of any route
common to two or more regions. In other words, we have to
read the words "to perform those duties etc." once after the
word "fit" and a second time after the words "Regional Transport
F
Authority." That will explain the importance of the conjunetion
"and" which is found in sub-clause (b) after rthe words "such
authority".
The first contingency brooks of no limitation while
contingencies (2) and (3) are limited in scope.
Since these
two types of contingencies-one unlimited and the other limited
were combined into one place, the word 'and' has b~en used
after the first contingency.
The second contingency takes into
account the authority of the State Transport Authority. to t~ke G
over the specific duties of Regional Transport Authonty with
reg,ard to a common route if it thinks fit.
Since
the
S~te
Transport Authority is f<,ir the w.hole State ~n.d h~ ll: wider
jurisdiction than the separate regional authonl!es~ 1t
1s .only H
to be expected that the State Transport Authonty may, m a
fit case, take over the functions
of the Regional Transport
Authority wit!, regard to any route common to two or • more
re11;ions.
The third contigency is also a matter of convewence.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
llAJA~THAN v. NOOR MOHAMMAD (Palekar, J.)
847
A Regional Transport Authority, though clothed with the p0wers
to issue pennits with regard to a route common to two or more
regions, may for several reasons think it appropriate that his
function may be more conveniently perfonned by the State
Transport Authority being a superior Authority with jurisdiction
over the several regions and in such a case when a request is
made by the Regional Transport Authority, the State Transport
Authority would be entitled to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority.
In our opinion, the view which found
favour with '!he learned Judges with regard to the construction of
clause (b) is erroneous, and the State Transport Authority is
entitled to perform the dU'ties of the Regional Transport Authority (i) where there is no such authority; (ii) when the State
Transport Authority thinks it fit to perform the duties of the
Regional Transport Authority in reipect of any route common to
two or more reaions or (iii) where the State Transp:irt Authority
is required by the Regional Transport Authority to perform those
duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions.
This power under clause (b), however, is subject to certain
!imitations.
Sub-section (3) begins with the words
"A State
Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued
under section 43, and subject to such directions and save as
otherwise provided by or under this Act shall exercise and di11charJ?e throuJ?hout the State the followinJ? powers and functions,
including those in snb-clause (b). It is clear, therefore, that the
functions under sub-clause (b) could be discharged by the State
Transport Authority subject to directions given to it under section 43 of the Act and save as otherwise ,provided by or under
the Act.
In the present case it is ur11:ed that directions have
been issued by the State Government under' section 43.
We
shall deal with this point in another place. The other limitation
is that the State Transport Authority could perform the duties
of the Reaional Transport Authority under sub-clause ( (b)
save as oherwise provided bv or under this Act. It was con-·
tended tha: the Regional Transport Authority is
a
separate
' authority on which the duties referred to in clause (b) have be.en
imposed by otper provisions in Chapter IV, and since the State
Transport Auihority is required to act 'save as otherwise provided by or under the Act" it would be disentitled to take over
the functions under sub-clause (b).
Such
an
interpretation
would obviously lead to grave incongruity.
Sub-clause (b), as
we have already seen, provides for the exercise of the nowers
of the Regional Transport Authority by the State Transport
Authority in certain contin~encies. If the expression "save as
H ··otherwise provided bv or under the Act" is comtrued in a manner
to negative the functions oermltted to be Performed under subclause (b), the verv obiect with which sub-clause (b) ha• been
accordance with the directions issued by the State Gowrnment
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.k.
enacted will be frustrated.
We have therefore to construe ti.
expression. "save as otherwise provided by or u~der the Act" i•
a hannomous manner so that sub-clause (b) is not reduced te
a. nullity. In our opinion the expression "save as otherwise provided by or under the Act" would in the context mean, "save Bi
ex~ressly barred by or under the Act". If there is a provisioa
which expressly debarrs the exercise of the power under subc!~use (b) in any cas·~ ~en only the State Transport Authority
~ill no! be ~ble to exercise the power and discharge the functions given m sub-clause ( b).
Otherwise there would be no
such bar. It is not shown to us that there is any express
provision which bars the performance by the
State Transport
Authority of the duties referred to in sub-clause (b) and, ·therefore, w~ arc of the view that the State Transport Authority in
this particular case would not be barred from performing the
duties under sub-clause (b).
·
That brings us to the second ground on which the respondent's
request was granted.
Section 44 ( 3) provides
that
a ·State
Transport Authority is required to give effect to any direction
issued under section 43 and would be entitled to exercise and
discharge the powers and functions in sub-clauses (a)(b)(c)
and ( d) subject to any such directions.
Section 43 gives the
State Government the power to control road transport
and to
that end is entitled from time to tim.e by notification in the official Gazette to issue directions tb the State Transport Authority
in 4 specified cases. One of them is contained in clause (iv) of
sub,section (I).
The State Government is entitled to
give
direction to the State Transport Authority regarding any matter
which may appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for giving effect to any agreement entered into with the
Central Government or any other State Government
or
the
Government or any other country relating to the regulation of
motor transport generally, and in particular to its co-ordination
with other means of transport and t!Je conveying of long distance goods traffic.
It is not disputed
before
us
that
the
Sta'te Government of Rajasthan has by notification dated December 14. 1966 issued directions under section 43(1) (iv) to the
State Transport Authority to the effect that the Regional
Transport Authority was to invite applications for grant of pem1its
on inter-state routes or to select aoolications for 'the !!Tant· of
permit.
Now this direction is binding on the State Transport
Authority and since it has to give effect to this direction,
it
cannot function contrarv to this direc<tion.
It is obvious that
the resolution o"s<;ed bv the State
Transport Authority
011
J"nuarv 27. 191'9 bv which it tnok over the functions of th•
Regional Tran<port Authoritv wi'h regard to inter-state routes
contrary to this direction and. therefore. to that extent
was
invalid.
Tt i< eloo ,..of in di<nnte th•t the rout"
wi•h
which
we are concerned, is also an inter.state route and, therefore, m
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
•
RA.1,At'l1IAN v. NOOR MOHAMMAD (Palekar, /.)
849
A
it was the R.al Transport Authority alone which could have
exercised the Jtmctions with regard to the grant of penni~ on
inter-state routes and not the State Transpert Authority.
This
position is not contes11ed before us by the learned Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the appellants.
His main complaint
in the appeal before us was that the High Court had inte~pri:ted
B
section 44(3)(b) ln a manner which would have ;;reated giave
public inconvenience. That was the chief reason why the appellants felt compelled to come to this Court.
The final order passed by the High Court requiring the
Regional Authority to proceed in accordance with law is col'rect.
C In the circumstances Of the case the appeal had to be dismissed
with no order as to costs. That order has been already passed
on 20-7-1972.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
$-Ll72Sup.Cl/73