Judgment :- 1. Despite the strenuous argument advanced by Counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the reasoning and the conclusion of the learned judge are correct and the judgment under appeal has to be affirmed. 2. The appellant challenged Ext. P6 order dated 3-6-1976 by the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur, granting a temporary permit to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, under S.68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The circumstances leading to the grant were briefly these. Ext. P1 notification dated 27-4-1976 had been issued by the Kerala State Road Transport undertaking for a scheme of nationalisation of the routes Triehur-Cranganore, and Kottapuram -Guruvayoor. The scheme was gazetted on 27-4-1976 inviting objections. This was followed by Ext. P2 order dated 13-5-1976 granting a temporary permit under S.68(CC) of the Act to the District Transport Officer, Trichur. The grant was quashed under Ext. P3 judgment dated 2nd June 1976 by a learned judge of this Court, as it was admitted on all hands that the Secretary who issued Ext. P2 order had no power to issue the same and that the same had to be done by the Regional Transport Authority. The District Transport Officer presented Ext. P4 application for a temporary permit under S.68-F(1-A) of the Act, for the route Trichur-Azhikode via., Palakkal, Oorakam, Irinjalakuda, Kodungallure, covered by the routes proposed to be nationalised by Ext. P1. Ext. P5 is the copy of the covering letter that accompanied the application. By Ext. P6 - order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the temporary permit was granted. This was attacked before the learned judge on several grounds all of which were rejected, and the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. 3. Before us, the only ground urged against the validity of Ext. P6 order was that the power under S.68-F(1-A) to grant a temporary permit could not be exercised by the Secretary but only by the Regional Transport Authority and that the power was incapable of delegation, and had not in fact been delegated, to the Secretary. S.44 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, occurring in Chapter IV thereof, authorises the Regional Transport Authority by rules framed under S.68, to delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person as may be prescribed by the rules. S.62 is the Section dealing with the issue of temporary permits. S.44 (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, occurring in Chapter IV thereof, authorises the Regional Transport Authority by rules framed under S.68, to delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person as may be prescribed by the rules. S.62 is the Section dealing with the issue of temporary permits. Under S.68, clause (2)(aa), rules could be framed for the conduct of business by any Regional Transport Authority regarding the manner in which its business could be conducted. Under S.68-B, the provisions of Chapter IV A are made transcendental, in the sense that the provisions of the Chapter and the Rules made thereunder, are to override every other provision or rule under the Act inconsistent therewith S.68-C provides for publication of a scheme for nationalisation of transport. S.68-D provides for objections to the scheme and S.68-F provides for consequences that follow the issuance of a nationalised scheme. Sub-section 1-A of the said Section reads: 68-F. Issue of permits to the State Transport Undertakings, xx xx xx xx (1-A) where any scheme has been published by a State Transport Undertaking under S.68-C, that Undertaking may apply for a temporary permit, in respect of any area or route or portion thereof specified in the said scheme, for the period intervening between the date of publication of the scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme and where such application is made, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall, if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof, issue the temporary permit prayed for by the State Transport Undertaking." Ext. P6 order was issued under the above Rule. 4. S.68-1(1) authorises the Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of Chapter IV-A. We then turn to R.161 framed under the Motor Vehicles R.1961 framed in exercise of the powers under various Sections which have been mentioned in the notification framing the Rules. It is enough to notice that S.68-1 is not one of the Sections mentioned in the notification. S.68 is mentioned. R.161 (1) (n) reads: "161. Power of Regional Transport Authority Delegation to Secretary. It is enough to notice that S.68-1 is not one of the Sections mentioned in the notification. S.68 is mentioned. R.161 (1) (n) reads: "161. Power of Regional Transport Authority Delegation to Secretary. (1) The Regional Transport Authority may, for the prompt and convenient despatch of business, by general or special resolution, delegate to the Secretary, any or all of the following functions: xx xx xx xx (n) power under S.68F of the Act to grant permits to State Transport Undertaking; xx xx xx xx" 5. S.68-F (1-A) was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act only in 1970. Rules had been framed under S.68-I of the Act; but these do not contain a power of delegation of the power under S.68-F (1-A). 6. In the light of these provisions, the argument was that the specific provision in S.68-F (1-A), which is transcendental in nature dealt with the power to grant temporary permits for a special interim period, and the same had not been delegated to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, by the special rules framed under S.684. The general rule, 161 (1)(n), it was contended, could not cover in its ambit the power of delegation under a Section that itself came into force subsequent to the Rules, especially when, under the special rules framed under S.68-I, the power of delegation did not comprehend the power under S.68-F (1-A). 7. We are not impressed with this argument. The general power under the various Sections mentioned in the notification is wide enough to authorise R.161 (1) (n) of the Motor Vehicles R.1961. That Rule expressly refers to the power under S.68-F. S.68-F (1-A) is part of S.68-F. Therefore, a power to frame rules with respect to S.68-F would carry with it also a power to frame rules with respect to S.68-F (1-A). That S.68-F (1-A) was introduced only on 2-3-1970 does not matter. The main part of the Section being covered by the Rule, its subsequent additions and accretions would also be comprehended. This being the position, we are in agreement with the learned judge in holding that R.161 (1) (n) covers the power of rule-making with respect to S.68-F (1-A). 8. We do not think the transcendental nature of Chapter IV-A enacted by S.68-B would, in any way militate against our reasoning and conclusion. This being the position, we are in agreement with the learned judge in holding that R.161 (1) (n) covers the power of rule-making with respect to S.68-F (1-A). 8. We do not think the transcendental nature of Chapter IV-A enacted by S.68-B would, in any way militate against our reasoning and conclusion. That Section only enacts that any 'inconsistent' provision in any other Chapter will be overridden by the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the Rules made thereunder. There is no inconsistency either in R.161(1)(n) or in the provisions of Chapter TV to be overridden by S 68-B or by the Rules under S.684, or by S.68-F (1). We affirm the judgment of the learned judge and dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs. Dismissed.