JUDGMENT T.K. Joseph, J. 1. These original petitions arise from orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam, granting applications for permits for stage carriages on five routes. The petitioner in O. P. No. 372 is Ettumanoor Motors (Private) Ltd. and in the other original petitions the petitioner is the Swaraj Motors (Private) Ltd. Respondents 1 to 3 in all the original petitions are respectively the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Trichur, the Regional Transport Authority, Kottayam and the State Transport Authority, Trivandrum. The fourth and fifth respondents in O. P. Nos. 372 and 373 are persons who were granted permits on Palai-Athirampuzha route. The successful applicants in respect of Kottayam-Meenadom, Kumali-Munnar, Kottayam-Thondukuzhi, and Kottayam-Pampadi routes have been impleaded as fourth respondent in O. P. Nos. 374, 375, 381 and 382 respectively. The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for stage carriage permits on the above routes and applications were filed by several persons for permits. The petitioners in these original petitions objected to the grant of permits contending inter alia that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant permits in view of a Circular dated 5-12-1957 issued by the third respondent. This objection was overruled and permits were granted to the fourth and fifth respondents in O. P. Nos. 372 and 373 and the fourth respondent in each of the other original petitions. The petitioners preferred appeals to the first respondent. The view taken by the Regional Transport Authority regarding the Circular issued by the third respondent was upheld by the first respondent although the appeals were allowed on other grounds in respect of the permits granted for Kottayam-Meenadom, Kottayam-Thondukuzhi and Kottayam-Pampadi routes. These original petitions are for quashing the orders of the first and second respondents on the ground that the Circular dated 5-12-1957 should have been respected and followed. Respondents 4 and 5 in O. P. Nos. 372 and 373 and the fourth respondent in each of the other Original petitions have filed counter affidavits affirming the correctness of the orders of respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 to 3 who have not filed any counter affidavits were represented at the hearing by Sri. C. M. Kuruvilla, Government Pleader. 2. The point arising for decision in these original petitions is whether the Circular issued by the third respondent is valid. Respondents 1 to 3 who have not filed any counter affidavits were represented at the hearing by Sri. C. M. Kuruvilla, Government Pleader. 2. The point arising for decision in these original petitions is whether the Circular issued by the third respondent is valid. Copy of the Circular in question has been produced by the petitioners and the same may be extracted: "It has been represented to Government and this Authority that the present procedure for assessing necessity for grant of fresh stage carriage permits, variation of routes and additional buses on existing routes is not uniform or scientific and that very often relevant data is not taken into account for such assessment. To allay this apprehension and to collect the necessary information for determining additional requirements of bus services in the State and also to standardise existing routes, the Government have appointed a Traffic Census Committee which is expected to make available to the Transport Authorities useful data to systematise the disposal of applications for permits. The State Transport Authority is convinced that the continuance in the meanwhile of the present practice will further complicate the problem, render the work of the Committee more or less infructuous and result in a still further expansion of un-co-ordinated bus traffic. To regulate and co-ordinate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities in this respect during the interregnum and to ensure a uniform procedure being followed, the State Transport Authority resolve to direct, under section 44(4) of the M. V. Act, 1939 as amended by Act, 100 of 1955, that all proposals formulated by the Regional Transport Authorities either on their own initiation or public representation or on application made to them regarding:-- 1. Opening of new routes ; 2. Variation of existing routes and 3. Sanctioning additional buses on existing routes, shall be forwarded to the State Transport Authority for examination against the background of the general transport policy of the State and that their concurrence should be obtained 1 before the R. T. A. takes any further action in the matter. The detailed procedure to be followed by the Secretaries of the R. T. As. for obtaining the concurrence of the State Transport authority on the proposals referred to above is detailed in appendix I, II and III of this direction. 2. The detailed procedure to be followed by the Secretaries of the R. T. As. for obtaining the concurrence of the State Transport authority on the proposals referred to above is detailed in appendix I, II and III of this direction. 2. These directions will come into force immediately in respect of all applications and proceedings pending disposal, except in cases where public hearing under Section 57(5) of the Act has actually commenced. These directions are in supersession of all the previous instructions on the subjects and will apply throughout the State. 3. The Secretaries of the R. T, As. will place this circular before the respective R.T.As. for information and guidance. The Secretaries will also acknowledge receipts of this circular at an early date." This purports to have been issued as a direction under Section 44(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-s.(3) and (4) of section 44 read as follows: "(3) A State Transport Authority shall give effect to any direction issued under section 43 and, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or 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 policies 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 and, if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions ; (c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between 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-s.(3), a State Transport Authority may, subject 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." The question is whether the Circular is ultra vires of the powers of the State Transport Authority under Section 44(4). Two points were raised by the respondents, and these are: (1) that in issuing the Circular, the State Transport Authority has usurped the powers of the Regional Transport Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, and (2) that the directions contemplated under sub-s.(4) are only administrative directions. 3. The first point may now be considered. Chapter IV of the Act provides for control of transport vehicles. Section 42 prohibits the use of transport vehicles in public places without a permit. Section 44 enables the State Government to constitute a State Transport Authority as well as the Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified under the Act. Sections 45 to 48 and 57 relate to applications for the grant of permits for stage carriages and the procedure to be adopted in dealing with such applications. All applications for stage carriage permits in respect of vehicles intended to ply within the State are to be made to Regional Transport Authorities and such Authorities have to decide the same, having regard to the matters specified in Section 47. Thus, it is the function of the Regional Transport Authority to decide whether applications have to be granted or refused, and this has to be done after inviting objections from persons who are likely to be affected by such grant and hearing them. It has been held at least in three reported decisions of the Supreme Court that the Regional Transport Authorities exercise a quasi judicial function in disposing of such applications. Keeping this in view, the scope of the Circular has to be examined. The direction given in the Circular is that no Regional Transport Authority should exercise its quasi judicial power of granting applications for permits without the concurrence of the State Transport Authority. This means that the State Transport Authority decides what all applications would be entertained by the Regional Transport Authorities. This clearly amounts to interference with the quasi judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authorities. Section 44(4) no doubt provides that the State Transport Authority may issue directions to any Regional Transport Authority and that the latter should be guided by such directions but it is also clear from the section that such directions should be for the purpose of exercising and discharging the functions specified in sub-s.(3) and should further be subject to such conditions as are prescribed. It is also seen from sub-s.(3) that the State Transport Authority is to exercise and discharge its powers and functions save as otherwise provided by or under the Act. (The underlining is mine). It has already been pointed out that it is the function of the Regional Transport Authority to entertain applications for permits and to dispose of the same in a quasi judicial manner. The power conferred on the State Transport Authority to issue directions is not intended to enable the Authority to abrogate these quasi judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authorities. The Circular goes much beyond the avowed object of co-ordinating and regulating the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, which alone is contemplated under section 44(3)(a). The activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authority are not to be co-ordinated or regulated by divesting that body of its quasi judicial functions. The State Transport Authority has therefore acted in excess of its powers in issuing the Circular in question and the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Tribunal were right in discarding the same. 4. The above finding is sufficient to dispose of the original petitions. However, since the question as regards the nature of the direction to be issued by the State Transport Authority has been raised, I may observe that the only logical conclusion is that the directions contemplated under section 44(4) are and can be only of an administrative nature. The Regional Transport Authorities have both administrative as well us quasi judicial functions and in respect of the former alone can directions be issued by the State Transport Authority. Appeals from the orders passed by the Regional Transport Authorities in exercise of their quasi judicial functions lie, not to the State Transport Authority but to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Supreme Court had to consider the power of the State Government to issue directions to the State Transport Authority under section 43A (Madras Amendment) in Raman and Raman Ltd. v State of Madras ( AIR 1959 SC 694 ). Section 43A (Madras Amendment) reads as follows : "The State Government may 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 a Regional Transport Authority ; and such Transport Authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions". Section 43A (Madras Amendment) reads as follows : "The State Government may 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 a Regional Transport Authority ; and such Transport Authority shall give effect to all such orders and directions". It was held by the Supreme Court that the orders and directions contemplated by section 43A were only those of an administrative nature, even though I the section was worded in very wide language. It was observed by the Supreme court that while section 44(4) enabled the State Transport Authority as the administrative head to issue directions to the Regional Transport Authorities there was no similar power vested in the State Government and that section 43A was introduced to enable the Government to exercise an administrative control. Though the decision of the Supreme Court was given regarding the scope of section 43A (Madras), the reasons given for the decision, if I may say so with respect, apply to section 44(4) also. The petitioners must therefore fail on the second point also. 5. It follows that the decisions of respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to be quashed. Original Petition Nos. 372, 373, 374, 375, 381 and 382 of 1959 are therefore dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.