Judgment :- 1. S.48(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (Central Art No. 4 of 1939) provided that a Regional Transport Authority may, after consideration of the matters set forth in sub-section (1) of S.47, "limit the number of stage carriages or stage carriages of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region". By Ext. D dated 4-4-1952 the Government of Madras ordered as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by S.43 A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (Central Act IV of 1939) His Excellency the Governor of Madras hereby directs that the Regional Transport Authorities shall, under S.48 (a) of the said Act, limit the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted on each of the routes within their respective regions". 2. The reason for the order is stated as follows in Ext. D: "Under S.57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (Central Act IV of 1939) on receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority should observe the detailed procedure prescribed in that section before disposing of such applications. This involves avoidable waste of time and labour on the part of the Regional Transport Authority in cases where the Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for permit on the ground that the existing services on the route are adequate. The Government have examined the question of minimising the laborious procedure involved in such cases, in consultation with the State Transport Advisory committee and the Central Road Traffic Board. The Central Road Traffic Board has suggested that the Regional Transport Authority may by a resolution limit the number of stage carriages in the entire region under S.48 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act and when that is done the Regional Transport Officers can decline to receive applications with reference to R.153 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 except those received in accordance with a notice inviting applications. The Government consider that the object in view can be achieved if the Regional Transport Authority fixes the maximum number of stage carriages for each of the routes in its region under S.48 (a) of the Act. The Government consider that the object in view can be achieved if the Regional Transport Authority fixes the maximum number of stage carriages for each of the routes in its region under S.48 (a) of the Act. Applications received for permission on a route or routes where no vacancies exist, can be summarily rejected under R.153 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules" R. 153 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, is in the following terms': "When a Transport Authority has, in exercise of its powers under the Act, imposed a limit upon the number of permits of any class which may be granted for a specified route or a specified area and has already granted such number of permits of that class, the Transport Authority or the Secretary of the Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by the Transport Authority, may decline to receive further applications for such permits in respect of any such route or area". 3. Apparently prompt action was not taken in pursuance of the order. Ext. E dated 13-9-1952 is a memo of the Central Road Traffic Board, Madras, requesting that early steps be taken to implement the decision of the Government embodied in Ext. D. 4. Ext. F is an extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, held on 29-10-1952. It shows that the Authority decided to limit the number of buses on the Kozhikode-Perambra route to two. 5. The provisions of S.48 (a) were incorporated as sub-section (3) of S.47 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956, (Central Act No. 100 of 1956): "A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-s. (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region". 6. Ext. A is a notification of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, dated 14-8-1957. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows: "There is a proposal for introduction of two additional buses on the following route. Table:#1 2. Those who have any representation to make in this connection should do so in writing so as to reach this office on or before 29-8-1957. Representations received after the above date will not be considered". 7. Table:#1 2. Those who have any representation to make in this connection should do so in writing so as to reach this office on or before 29-8-1957. Representations received after the above date will not be considered". 7. On 2-9-1957 the Authority resolved to increase the number of buses on the route by one and by Ext. B dated 4-9-1957 invited applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit. The relevant portion of the notification is in the following terms: "The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, will receive applications on or before 25-9-1957 for the grant of a stage carriage permit in connection with the proposal mentioned below: - It is proposed to introduce an additional bus service on the following route:-Route" Kozhikode - Perambra. No. of buses: one" via. Kakkodi - Balusseri. 8. The petitioner is one of the two operators on the route. His submissions are that a Regional Transport Authority has no power to vary the limits fixed by it, that variations to be valid have to be effected by the Government under S.43-A(2) of the Act, that the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, to increase the limit from two to three by the resolution dated 2-9-1957 is beyond its powers, and that Exts. A and B should be quashed by an appropriate writ or direction from this court. 9. S.43-A(2) was introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Madras Amendment) Act, 1954, (Madras Act No. 39 of 1954). It reads as follows: "The State Government may, on a consideration of the matters set forth in sub-section (1) of S.47, direct any Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority to open any new route or to extend an existing route or to permit additional stage carriages, to be put, or to reduce the number of stage carriages, on any specified route". 10. According to counsel for the petitioner this provision shows a consciousness of the Regional Transport Authorities' lack of power and was enacted in order to avoid the difficulties that may arise from the absence of power to vary the limits fixed by a Regional Transport Authority. The sub- mission is without merit. 10. According to counsel for the petitioner this provision shows a consciousness of the Regional Transport Authorities' lack of power and was enacted in order to avoid the difficulties that may arise from the absence of power to vary the limits fixed by a Regional Transport Authority. The sub- mission is without merit. The Statement of Objects and Reasons makes it quite clear that the reason for the introduction of sub-section (2) of S.43-A was only the conclusion of the Government that the Government should have "the power in proper cases to issue directions to the Regional Transport Authorities or the State Transport Authority to open a new route or to extend an existing route or to increase or decrease the number of buses on any specified route". (Fort St. George Gazette, Part IV-A - Extraordinary, date 6-12-1954) 11. As to whether the power of a Regional Transport Authority to fix the limits exhausts itself with its first exercise has naturally to be determined in the light of the section on the subject - not of the powers of the Government to issue directions-, and the General Clauses Act, 1897 (Central Act No. X of 1897). S.14(1) of that Act provides: "Where by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires" and as I am unable to see any "different intention" I must hold that the power conferred by S.48 (a) - now by S.47 (3) - does not disappear with its first exercise as contended by the petitioner, that it survives, and that it is available for being exercised from time to time as occasion requires". 12. In A.I.R. 1953 Assam 168 it was argued that "where the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-divisional Officer has fixed the site of 'Khutis' once, he cannot alter them during the currency of the permit". The contention of the Advocate-General in reply was dealt with as follows by the High Court: "The learned Advocate-General contends that the power to fix implies also the power to refix sites of 'Khutis' or Bathans unless the language of the rule expressly provides to the contrary. He bases his contention on the provisions contained in S.15 of the Assam General Clauses Act. He bases his contention on the provisions contained in S.15 of the Assam General Clauses Act. This section provides that where any power is conferred by any Act or regulation of the Provincial Legislature then (unless a different intent appears), that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion arises. Under this provision if need for a refixation or alteration of sites is felt, the Deputy Commissioner or Sub-divisional Officer shall have jurisdiction to alter the sites of 'Khutis'. Circumstances which may make refixing of the sites of 'Khutis' necessary or desirable can be easily conceived. The effect of S.15, Assam General Clauses Act would be that the competent authority shall have the right to refix them unless a different intention could be read into the rule. We do not think it possible to read any such intention". 13. In the light of what is stated above I must hold that the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode, did not exceed its powers when it resolved to increase the limit from two to three on 2-9-1957, that Exts. A and B are not liable to be quashed and that this petition should be dismissed. Judgment accordingly. 14. The petitioner will pay the costs of the respondent, advocate's fee Rs. 100/-.