Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22 February 2010 in Motor Vehicle Appeal No.154 of 2009 on the file of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai remanding the matter to the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal to consider the variation application afresh without indicating the legal effect of deletion of Explanation to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995. Background facts: 2. The petitioner is the owner of stage carriage bearing No. TN 28 P 3636 plying on the route Karur to Karavalli. The petitioner submitted an application before the Regional Transport Authority at Namakkal on 2 August 1995 for variation of permit conditions. The petitioner wanted grant of two additional singles between Namakkal and Karur (via) Velur on the direct route with change of night halt from Namakkal to Karur so as to ply on the said route. The application was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal. The Authority was of the view that the Explanation added to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") was deleted as per Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.758 (Home (Trpt.III) Dept. dated 25 May 1996 and as such there was no provision was available in the existing modified approved scheme to grant variation of permit. 3. The order dated 14 July 2009 on the file of the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal was taken up before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") The Tribunal after extracting the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992, Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules 1995, G.O.Ms.No.1935 Home (Transport III) Department dated 29 December 1995 and the subsequent Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.758, Home (Transport III) Department dated 25 May 1996 opined that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Regional Transport Authority. However, the Tribunal failed to test the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the Regional Transport Authority, that on account of deletion of Explanation 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules 1995, grant of variation cannot be permitted. The failure to give a definite finding by the Tribunal on the issue raised by the petitioner made him to file this writ petition. 4. The failure to give a definite finding by the Tribunal on the issue raised by the petitioner made him to file this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules 1995, contended that the Explanation in question was added only by way of a clarification and the deletion of the said Explanation would not take away the right of the statutory authority to consider the application for variation. The learned counsel also contended that the Regional Transport Authority committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the deletion to Explanation 4 resulted in taking away the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority to take up the application for variation. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M.P (2006) 8 SCC 613). According to the learned counsel, the remand of the matter to the Regional Transport Authority would not serve any purpose unless the legal position is clarified. 5. The learned Government Advocate supported the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Factual analysis: 6. The appellant is a Stage Carriage Operator plying on the route Karur to Karavalli on the strength of a permit issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal. The appellant wanted variation of the permit conditions. The application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority solely on the ground that the Explanation added to Rule 4 of the Rules was deleted and as such there is no provision available in the existing approved modified scheme to grant variation of permit. 7. The core question is whether the deletion of Explanation would deny the Regional Transport Authority the jurisdiction to consider the application for variation. 8. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 deals with grant of permit as well as variation. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 gives jurisdiction to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application for variation of Stage Carriage Permit so as to enable the permit holder to operate on the entire route or in variation of the route covered by the approved scheme. Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules 1995, deals with the procedure for variation of conditions of permit. Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules 1995, deals with the procedure for variation of conditions of permit. Under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, the application for variation should be made to the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority as the case may be, in the prescribed format. The statutory authority was required to issue a public notice calling for objections. Sub Rule (4) of Rule 4 gives the statutory authority, the right to grant or refuse variation. 9. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 was amended as per G.O.Ms.No.1935, Home (Transport III) Department dated 29 December 1995. By way of the said amendment, Explanation was added to Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules. By way of the said Explanation, Legislature has indicated as to what is meant by variation. Subsequently the Government issued another order in G.O.Ms.No.758, Home (Transport III) Department, dated 6 January 1996 further amending the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules. By way of the amendment, the Explanation was taken away. It was only on account of this deletion, the Regional Transport Authority pleaded inability to consider the application for variation. Scope of "Explanation": 10. The specific scope of Explanation is to explain something. In case the provision is vague or certain clarification is necessary, Explanation would be added, so as to give clarity to the Act or Rule. 11. The function of an Explanation is essentially to explain the substantive provisions and not to add or subtract from it. The Explanation does not restrict or extend the scope of an enactment. It is merely to explain the true nature of the Enactment. 12. The Supreme Court in Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M.P., (2006) 8 SCC 613, followed the earlier judgment in Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman ( AIR 1985 SC 582 : (1985) 1 SCC 591 ) and explained the role of Explanation in a statute. The Supreme Court said: Rival Contentions: "31. The role of an Explanation of a statute is well known. By inserting an Explanation in the Schedule of the Act, the main provisions of the Act cannot be defeated. By reason of an Explanation, even otherwise, the scope and effect of a provision cannot be enlarged. The Supreme Court said: Rival Contentions: "31. The role of an Explanation of a statute is well known. By inserting an Explanation in the Schedule of the Act, the main provisions of the Act cannot be defeated. By reason of an Explanation, even otherwise, the scope and effect of a provision cannot be enlarged. It was so held in S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman( AIR 1985 SC 582 : (1985) 1 SCC 591 ) in the following terms: (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve, (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, 13. The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 and The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 gives jurisdiction to the statutory authority to consider the application for variation. Explanation was inserted for the purpose of giving more clarity to the concept of variation. Merely because the Explanation was taken away it cannot be said that the authority has become powerless to consider the application for variation. Explanation to Rule 4 contains nine instances to be treated as variation. Merely because those instances were taken away subsequently by way of amendment, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction itself was taken away. So long as Section 6(2) of the Act and Rule 4 are in the statute book, it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application for variation. 14. The Regional Transport Authority proceeded as if, the moment the Explanation is taken away, it would foreclose its authority to consider the application for variation. It is to be noted that even before introducing the Explanation by way of amendment, the provision regarding variation has been in existence and the authority has also been exercising the power of variation. 14. The Regional Transport Authority proceeded as if, the moment the Explanation is taken away, it would foreclose its authority to consider the application for variation. It is to be noted that even before introducing the Explanation by way of amendment, the provision regarding variation has been in existence and the authority has also been exercising the power of variation. Therefore, I am of the view that the Regional Transport Authority clearly erred in rejecting the application for variation. 15. The State Transport Authority merely remanded the matter without expressing its opinion with regard to the legal effect of deletion of an Explanation. The application for variation was rejected only on the ground of deletion of Explanation. There is no point in remanding the matter unless the effect of the deletion of Explanation is clarified. Therefore I am of the view that the mater requires fresh consideration by the Regional Transport Authority. Disposition: 16. The impugned order is set aside. The order passed by the original authority is quashed. The Regional Transport Authority, Namakkal is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for variation in accordance with Section 6(2) of The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 and Rule 4 of The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Rules, 1995 after notice to all concerned. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order. 17. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.