Judgement SATISH CHANDRA, J. :-The petitions was appointed as a bus conductor in the Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways. In respect of certain incidents that happened on 33-3 1963 the petitioner was charge-sheeted. He was asked to explain them and ultimately the matter was reported to the Regional Transport Authority. The matter was taken up by the Authority on 6-8-1966 in the presence of the petitioner. Ultimately, the Authority resolved to disqualify the petitioner from holding or obtaining a conductor's licence in Uttar Pradesh for a period of six months from the date of enforcement of this order in his licence. It was further resolved that the General Manager, U.P. Government Roadways, be requested to take strict disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. This order was passed under Sec. 21-F of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-Sec. (4) of Sec. 21-F runs as follows :- Any person aggrieved by an order made under Sub-Sec. (1) may, within thirty days of the service on him of the order, appeal to the Prescribed Authority which shall decide the appeal after giving such person and the authority making the order an opportunity of being heard and the decision of the appellate authority shall be binding on the authority making the order. The petitioner has stated that he rushed from pillar to post to find out as to who the Prescribed Authority was to hear the petitioner's appeal against the order passed on 6th August, 1966. He approached the State Transport Authority, but that authority refused to entertain the petitioner's appeal. The Regional Transport Commissioner also refused to entertain it. The main relief in the present writ petition is to command the State Government to appoint the Prescribed Authority which may entertain the petitioner's appeal. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that no appellate authority has been prescribed for hearing appeals against the orders passed under S. 21-F it the Motor Vehicles Act (vide paragraph 19). 2. Cl. (21) of S. 2 of the Motor Vehicles] Act defines 'Prescribed to mean prescribed by rules made under this Act. Under Sec. 21-J of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Government has to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter, i.e., to say the State Government has to make a rule for appointing a Prescribed Authority mentioned in Sec. 21-F. This is specifically provided by Cl. Under Sec. 21-J of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Government has to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter, i.e., to say the State Government has to make a rule for appointing a Prescribed Authority mentioned in Sec. 21-F. This is specifically provided by Cl. (g) of Sub-Sec (2) of Sec. 21-J. Under this clause the rules have to provide for the conduct of the hearing of the appeal, that may be preferred under this chapter. It is thus clear that the State Government is under a statutory duty to make rules for prescribing the Prescribed Authority and for the conduct and hearing of the appeal. It is apparent that no rules have yet been framed prescribing the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner was inflicted a punishment by the Regional Transport Authority against which he had a right of appeal under the statute. The State Government cannot, by omitting to frame the relevant rules, deprive an individual of his statutory right of appeal. 3. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The State Government is directed to make the relevant rules prescribing the Prescribed Authority under Sec. 21-F of the Motor Vehicles Act and for the conduct and hearing of the appeals under that provision forthwith. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.