SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THE Commissioner of Transport has been wrongly made a party to the Writ petition, whereas the Karnataka State transport Authority ought to have been impleaded as the second respondent. The petitioner is permitted to correct the cause title and implead the Karnataka state Transport Authority as second respondent by deleting the Commissioner. ( 2 ) IN this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the resolution dated 27-1-1987 passed by the first respondent in Subject No. 155/86- 87 as per Annexure 'c' and the resolution of the Appellate Authority, dated 13-7- 1987 passed by the second respondent in appeal No. STA. 1 /pr 135/87-88 vide annexure-D. ( 3 ) BY the first resolution, the original authority suspended the driving licence of the petitioner for a period of 3 years on the ground that the licencee- petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of a cyclist. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the first respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. The second respondent, by the impugned resolution, dated 13-7-1987, has dismissed the appeal the resolution of the second respondent reads thus :"case called. The appellant remained absent and unrepresented despite notice. However, on going through the appeal records it is found that there is no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in this appeal. The orders passed by the RTA. , Bangalore is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed". ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned government Pleader appearing for the respondents that as the second respondent is an appellate authority and as it has agreed with the reasons given by the original authority, it was not incumbent upon it to write a detailed and speaking order. it is not possible to accept the contention. The appeal lies both on facts and law. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is required to examine the records of the case and consider the contentions raised by the appellant and also the validity of the reasons given by the Original authority. it is not possible to accept the contention. The appeal lies both on facts and law. Therefore, the Appellate Authority is required to examine the records of the case and consider the contentions raised by the appellant and also the validity of the reasons given by the Original authority. Section 16 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') provides that "any person aggrieved by an order of a Regional transport Authority made under sub section (1), may within thirty days of the receipt of intimation of such order appeal against the order to the prescribed authority. " Thus, an unrestricted appeal is provided. No limitation is placed on the power of the appellate authority. In conformity with sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, Sub rule (3) of Rule 87 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 specifically provides that the Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity to the parties to be hard and after such further enquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary, may confirm, vary or set aside, the order against which the appeal is preferred or may remand the case for further or fresh enquiry and may also direct stay of proceedings pending such enquiry. ( 5 ) FROM the aforesaid rule and Section 16 (2) of the Act coupled with the established principles of law relating to the scope of the power and functions of the appellate jurisdiction where no restrictions ere placed on such jurisdiction. it was incumbent upon the second respondent to advert to the facts of the case, the reasons given by the original authority and the contentions raised by the appellate authority, and record its own conclusions and pass an appropriate order in conformity with its conclusions. As the resolution of the second respondent does not disclose either the facts of the case, the contentions of the petitioner-appellant or the reasons for dismissing the appeal, it is not possible to sustain the resolution. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ Petition is allowed in the following terms : the resolution dated 13-7-1987 passed by the second respondent in Subject No. 160/1987 at Annexure-D is hereby quashed. The appeal now stands remitted to the second respondent with a direction to decide the same afresh and, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. The appeal now stands remitted to the second respondent with a direction to decide the same afresh and, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. Sri P. R. Ramesh, (earned High Court government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents in 6 weeks. Writ Petition Allowed --- *** --- .