ORDER:- In this batch of writ petitions the validity of the Government's notification G.O.(P) No. 19/94/PW and T, Public Works and Transport (M) Department dated 28-3-1994 issued as S.R.O. No. 364 of 1994, is challenged. Indifferent writ petitions slightly different prayers are made. But the main attack is against Ext. P10. The main reliefs prayed for are as follows : to issue a writ of certiorari to quash S.R.O No. 364 of 1994; to issue a writ of mandamus to allow the petitioners to operate services as fast passenger services in terms of valid permits or in forms of permits that are to be issued, collecting fares as prescribed in the fare revision without insisting upon the fulfilment of the conditions in Clause F of S. R. O. No. 364/94. 2. The historical background for this litigation has to be stated in brief. Originally private operators (petitioners) were not permitted to operate limited stop services, fast passenger services, fast passenger with limited stop services, super fast services, express services, super express services etc. Government reserved this right of running express service, fast passenger services etc., to fleet owners who are running a fleet of more than 150 stage carriages. It was exclusively reserved to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation which was the only fleet operator with more than 150 stage carriages. That reservation was challenged in a batch of writ petitions and this Court by judgment dated 9-8-1989 in O.P. No. 10375/88 held that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 does not provide for any exclusive privilege for the fleet owners to run the fast passenger services and that exclusive right conferred by a notification issued under Section 43(1)(i) cannot interfere with the scheme of the Act and that the definition of "fleet owner" in that notification dated 6-11-87 does not bar the right of the private operators to run fast passenger or express services. Subsequently after the new Motor Vehicles Act came into force on 1-7-1989 the writ appeal filed against that judgment was dismissed as not pressed. Subsequent to that litigation coming to close a number of private operators agitated for their right to run express services and fast passenger services and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld their claim in a batch of appeals. Subsequent to that litigation coming to close a number of private operators agitated for their right to run express services and fast passenger services and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld their claim in a batch of appeals. Questioning the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal the State Government of Kerala filed O.P. No. 731 of 1993 and other original petitions and they are still pending. In that original petition the State Government filed C.M.P. 'No'. 1377/1993 and sought stay of the judgment dated 18-11-1992 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. This Court refused to grant stay as prayed for. As the State was unable to obtain stay 'order in O. P. N.731 / 93 and thus prevent the private operators from operating fast passenger services and express services the State then came forward with an ingenious method to defeat the claims of the private operators from running fast passenger, limited stop fast passenger, express and super express services by issuing S.R.O. No. 364/94.On the pretext of revising the fares in exercise of it powers under Section 67 of the New Motor Vehicles Act, the State has imposed several onerous conditions which virtually make it impossible for the private operators to run the fast passenger, fast passenger limited stop and express services. By imposing several unworkable restrictions in paragraph F of the notification the Government virtually is trying to prevent the private operators from running the fast passenger and express services. Conditions (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Paragraph F are impossible of compliance. The net result of the notification is to exclude the petitioners from operating fast passenger and express services. 3. In this batch of writ petitions Sri P. Gopalakrishna Menon led the arguments and his arguments were adopted by the other petitioners and certain other learned advocates supplemented his arguments. Smt. Sumathi Dandapani and Sri K.V. Gopinathan Nair advanced additional argument to support the petitioners' claims. The sum and substance of the arguments can be briefly stated. The notification issued as S.R.O. No. 364/94 is one issued under S. 67(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That section only contemplates mere revision of fares and freights. The various conditions imposed by way of directions in the notification are outside the ambit of Section 67(1). Conditions (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Paragraph F of the notification are impossible of performance. That section only contemplates mere revision of fares and freights. The various conditions imposed by way of directions in the notification are outside the ambit of Section 67(1). Conditions (ii), (iii) and (iv) of Paragraph F of the notification are impossible of performance. No private operator who is anxious to run the fast passenger and express services can afford to provide advance reservation facilities of seven days reservation at both ends of the route and at all important stations on the route. Similarly no private operator can provide his own bus stations/ garages with retiring rooms, latrines, urinals separately for ladies and gents, refreshment stall and reservation centres at all the places of halting of the stage carriage. The notification also prohibits the operators from treating bus stations owned and provided by the local bodies as those provided by the private operators. Irrespective of the fleet strength they are also expected to keep a Reserve Bus as contemplated under Rule 182 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is also urged that under the guise of issuing directions under Section 67(1) the State is now trying to impose onerous conditions which are impossible of performance and it is also imposing conditions which are contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and various other statutes. 4. The respondents filed one counter in O.P. No. 5754 of 1994 and it is adopted as counter in all the biginal petitions. The Government Pleader takes the stand that S.R.O. No. 364/94 is issued for the benefit of the general public travelling for long distance. The necessary and minimum comforts for such passengers are sought to be provided by this notification because they are asked to pay a very high fare for the privilege of travelling in fast passenger and express services. The effort of the present petitioners is to take advantage of the higher fares provided in the notification and at the same time they wish to avoid the bounded duties and responsibilities cast on them to provide facilities. The petitioners cannot be permitted to have the benefits of the notification while avoiding responsibilities cast on them under the same notification. Their main attack is against paragraph F. If paragraph F is to be struck down the entire notification has to be quashed. The petitioners cannot be permitted to have the benefits of the notification while avoiding responsibilities cast on them under the same notification. Their main attack is against paragraph F. If paragraph F is to be struck down the entire notification has to be quashed. Earlier there was no necessity to issue notifications similar to S.R.O. No.364/94 because only the fleet owners were entitled to operate these fast passenger and express services and K.S.R.T.C. alone had the exclusive privilege and it has provided all facilities now sought to be provided in this notification. On the strength of the Court orders the private operators are now running fast passenger services and express services. There is absolutely no oblique motive in issuing S.R.O. No.364/94. The allegation of mala fides and oblique motive is baseless. The notification is issued with good intentions. The Government Pleader particularly emphasises that the effort of the present writ petitioners, private operators, is to avoid transporting of students who are entitled to concessional fares by running only fast passenger and limited stop fast passenger services in which the student concession will not be permittted. In effect they are only asking the right to run remunerative services only. They are also at the same time trying to deprive the benefits of fare revision indicated in S. R.O. No. 364 / 94 while they are not willing to provide the various conveniences as stipulated in the notification. The Government Pleader contends that the notification is not severable and if the Court finds that the conditions in paragraph F are not valid then the entire notification has to be quashed. The Court cannot grant relief by quashing only paragraph F. That would create anomalous consideration for giving benefit to the private operators. There is no justification for the steep-hike in fares granted by S.R.O. No. 364 / 94 unless correlated responsibilities are also discharged by them. 5. To resolve the rival contentions in this batch of writ petitions it is necessary to refer to certain statutory provisions under the 1939 Motor Vehicles Act as well as 1988 Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is also necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Panchayat Act and the rules thereunder. I shall briefly set out the statutory provisions which will have to be considered in this batch of cases. It is also necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Panchayat Act and the rules thereunder. I shall briefly set out the statutory provisions which will have to be considered in this batch of cases. Under the 1939 Motor Vehicles Act, Section 43 dealt with the special power to State Government to control road transport. Subsequently by virtue of the State amendment Section 43A was introduced. In this State Section 43Awas introduced by Act 35/71 with effect from 5-10-1971. Similar amendment was also made in the Madras State as early as 1954.1 perusal of Section 43 indicates that the State Government was given the power to issue directions both prospectively and retrospectively to the State Transport Authority regarding the fixing of fares and freights arid certain other prohibitions. Under sub-section (IA) the fixing of fares and freights can also include taxes payable. Under sub-section (2) the power was given for people to make representations for cancellation and variation of the notificition on various grounds. Under sub-section (3) it was open to the State to cancel on vary the notification. Under Section 43A Government was empowered to issue such directions of a general character as it may consider necessary in respect of any matter relating to road transport to the State Transport Authority of the Regional Transport Authority. Under the new Act Section 67 corresponds to Section 43 of the old Act. It is significant to remember that in the present Section 67, Clauses 43(1)(iii), 43(2) and 43(3) are omitted and the present Section 67(1) and (2) corresponds to old Section 43(1) and Sub-Section 1(A). The power to issue directions retrospectively is taken away. The present Section 67(1) as it reads gives only power to issue directions which will have prospective effect only to the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority. Section 67(1)(i) is very significant. It reads as follows: "Regarding the fixing of fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages. The ambit of the directions that can be given under Section 67(1) is limited. 6. The main question in this batch of writ petitions is whether the State Government is entitled to issue S.R.O. No. 364/94 in its entirety under the guise of exercising powers under Section 67(1)(i). 7. The ambit of the directions that can be given under Section 67(1) is limited. 6. The main question in this batch of writ petitions is whether the State Government is entitled to issue S.R.O. No. 364/94 in its entirety under the guise of exercising powers under Section 67(1)(i). 7. It should be remembered that under the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 72 deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Under subsection (2) the Regional Transport Authority can grant the permit subject to any rules that may be made under the Act and attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions enumerated in that sub-section. It is the contention of the petitioners that in addition to the conditions that are attached to the permits as per Sec 72(2) new and additional conditions are sought to be imposed by reason of paragraph of the notification. Clause (xx) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 stipulates that any specified bus station or shelter maintained by Government or a local authority shall be used and that any specified rent or fee shall be paid for such use. Clause (xxi) mentions that the conditions of the permit shall not be departed from, save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority. Clause (xxii) stipulates that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month, vary the conditions of the permit or attach to the permit further conditions. Clause (xxiv) contemplates that any other conditions which may be prescribed may be added, which means that those conditions should be prescribed as contemplated by the Act and the Rules. By issuing a notification the State Government is not entitled to prescribe any conditions. The issuing of a notification under Sec. 67 (1) is considered to be in administrative or executive function. It should also be remembered that under Section 84 there are certain general conditions which go with every permit. 8. When we come to the Kerala Panchayats Act, 1960 we find that Section 91 contemplates the Panchayat providing public landing places, halting places and cart-stands for various types of animals and vehicles including Motor Vehicles. It is also entitled to levy fees as per rules. Under clause (b) where any such place or stand has been provided, it can prohibit the use of any other places for such purpose. It is also entitled to levy fees as per rules. Under clause (b) where any such place or stand has been provided, it can prohibit the use of any other places for such purpose. Thus providing cart-stands, landing places or halting places by private operators is not legally possible. Section 92 provides for only cart-stands being opened by private persons, subject to the licence. There is a significant difference in the language of Section 91 and Section 92. While Sec. 91 (a) includes landing places and halting places for Motor Vehicles Section 92 does not contemplate private halting place for motor vehicles. The Kerala Panchayats (Landing Places, Halting Places and Cart Stands) Rules, 1964 stipulates the various rules which govern the cart-stands halting places and landing places. Under Rule 3 the Panchayat has to invite objections before providing a public landing place or halting place or cart-stand. The objections received from the public will have to be considered. Then it should be submitted to the Deputy Director under Rule 5. In the case of stand or a public halting place of motor vehicles, the Panchayat shall forward the proposal with the objections received to the Deputy Director and under Rule 6 the Deputy Director is compelled to obtain the previous sanction of the Collector and the Collector before giving sanction shall consult the Regional Transport Authority and obtain his recommendations. Rule 10 prescribes the fees to be charged etc. Rule 8 prohibits any other place being used as halting place or landing place where the Panchayat has provided a public landing place or halting place. The proviso to Rule 8 gives exemption to motor vehicles which are not stage carriages. Explanation to Rule 8 is also significant. 9. Bearing in mind the above statutory provisions I shall now consider the various arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties. It is contended by the learned advocates for the petitioners that the directions which can be issued under Section 67(1)(i) are confined to revision of fares and freights and no other conditions can be imposed by a notification issued under Section 67(1). The nature of the directions given under this provision and its corresponding provision under the old Act was the subject matter of a Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others (AIR 1964 SC 1573). The nature of the directions given under this provision and its corresponding provision under the old Act was the subject matter of a Constitutional Bench decision of the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and others (AIR 1964 SC 1573). There the Supreme Court dealing with cerjain directions issued under Section 43A, observed in paragraph 18 as follows: "Therefore, it seems to us that on a fair and reasonable construction of S. 43A, it ought to be held that the said Section authorises the State Government to issue orders and directions of a general character only in respect of administrative matters which fall to be dealt with by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority under the relevant provisions of the Act in their administrative capacity." In paragraph 19 the Supreme Court observed as follows: "In interpreting S. 43A, we think, it would be legitimate to assume that the legislature intended to respect the basic and elementary postulate of the rule of law, that in exercising their authority and in discharging their quasi judicial function the Tribunals constituted under the Act must be left absolutely free to deal with the matter according to their best judgment. It is of the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the decision of the Judge or the Tribunal must be absolutely unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the State." The Court further observed in the same paragraph as follows: