JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. 1. Appellants, the writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 23658 of 2015, are aggrieved by the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding Ext.P9 proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam held on 26.05.2015, whereby the authority has decided to remove the existing fare stage of such carriages at Manjummel Kavala by invoking the power conferred under Rule 211 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Rules, 1989 for short), on public interest. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Appellants are conducting stage carriage operation on the route Ernakulam-Guruvayur. The distance of the route is 86 kms and 34 fare stages have been fixed in the above route with an average of 2.5 kms evident from Ext.P5 list of approved fare and fare stages in respect of stage carriage vehicles on the route in question for Limited Stop Ordinary Services on and with effect from 11.11.2012. Stage No. 27 is SNDP (Varappuzha), stage No. 28 is Manjummal Kavala and stage No. 29 is Thaikavu. The Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, while considering the representation of the third respondent, decided to remove the fare stage “Manjummel Kavala” which according to the appellants, was in an arbitrary and illegal manner. Thereupon, the appellants, inter alia contending that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, have approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 5482 of 2014 and as per Ext.P8 judgment the order impugned namely Ext.P7 was quashed and directed the Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the matter afresh, after providing notice of hearing to all interested parties. It was accordingly that the matter was reconsidered and Ext.P9 order was passed after hearing all parties concerned. The learned single Judge, after appreciating the contentions raised by the appellants, the Government as well as the passengers, who were respondents 3 and 4, and relying upon various judgments rendered by this Court, has arrived at a conclusion that the stand adopted by the Regional Transport Authority is in accordance with law and the appellants have not made out any case justifying interference exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Chitra G. learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Smt. Chitra G. learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand and Smt. Sherry J Thomas, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 4. The sole question emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is warranted to the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. 5. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that Ext.P6 notification issued by the State Government dated 19.05.2014 under Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act, 1988 for short) specifically delineates the manner of fixation of fares as per clause (f) of the said notification and it has been specifically described that the distance between 2 stages will be taken generally as 2.5 kms. It is further submitted that fare stages are generally fixed not only on consideration of the distance, but also taking into consideration the factors like importance of place, convenience of passengers etc. That apart, it is contended that since Ext.P6 notification was issued by the Government by invoking the powers conferred under Section 67 of Act, 1988, the Regional Transport Authority is not vested with the powers to change, modify or alter the stages already fixed. It is also submitted that the said notification is a subordinate legislation having the effect of rules itself binding on the quasi judicial authorities like State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the Regional Transport Authority is illegal and arbitrary and the authority did not have power to pass any such orders. It is also submitted that the term “fixing of fares” employed in Section 67 of Act, 1988 includes the manner in which the fare is to be fixed and collected and it is perfectly within the power of the State Government to control or restrict the existence or otherwise of the fare stage which is also a part of fixing of fares. Therefore, the restriction imposed in the notification to continue the existing stages and not to alter the same, holds the field. Therefore, the restriction imposed in the notification to continue the existing stages and not to alter the same, holds the field. Further on routes where there is already fixation of fare stages, the interference made by the Regional Transport Authority in Ext.P9 order modifying Ext.P6 notification issued by the State Government is totally arbitrary and illegal and the learned single Judge ought to have taken into account the said aspect and allowed the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned Senior Government Pleader as well as the counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 have supported the judgments of the learned single Judge specifically contending that as per Ext.P9 order, the Regional Transport Authority has realised the mistake and has removed the existing fare stage at Manjummel Kavala by invoking the powers conferred under Rule 211 of Rules, 1989. It is also submitted that Section 67 of Act, 1988 only deals with the fixing of fares and so far as the fixing of fare stages are concerned, the power is absolutely vested with the Regional Transport Authorities by virtue of the Rule 211 of Rules, 1989. 7. We have appreciated the rival contentions advanced by the respective counsel. The paramount contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is relying upon Section 67 of Act, 1988, which deals with the power of the State Government to control road traffic and it reads thus: “67. Power to State Government to control road transport: (1) A State Government, having regard to: (a) the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of motor transport. (b) the desirability of coordinating road and rail transport. (c) the desirability of preventing the deterioration of the road system. Power to State Government to control road transport: (1) A State Government, having regard to: (a) the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of motor transport. (b) the desirability of coordinating road and rail transport. (c) the desirability of preventing the deterioration of the road system. (d) the desirability of preventing uneconomic competition among holders of permits, may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, issue directions both to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority: (i) regarding the fixing of fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages: [xxxx] (ii) regarding the prohibition or restriction, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions, of the conveying of long distance goods traffic generally, or of specified classes of goods by goods carriages; (iii) regarding any other matter which may appear to the State Government necessary or expedient for giving effect to any agreement entered into with the Central Government or any other State Government or the Government of any other country relating to the regulation of motor transport generally, and in particular to its coordination with other means of transport and the conveying of long distance goods traffic: Provided that no such notification in respect of the matters referred to in clause (ii) or clause (iii) shall be issued unless a draft of the proposed directions is published in the Official Gazette specifying therein a date being not less than one month after such publication, on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration and any objection or suggestion which may be received has, in consultation with the State Transport Authority, been considered after giving the representatives of the interests affected an opportunity of being heard. (2) Any direction under sub-section (1) regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages may provide that such fares or freights shall be inclusive of the tax payable by the passengers or the consignors of the goods, as the case may be, to the operators of the stage carriages, contract carriages or goods carriages under any law for the time being in force relating to tax on passengers and goods.” 8. On a reading of Section 67(1), it is clear and specific that the State Government is vested with powers from time to time to issue notification in the Official Gazette, and to issue directions both to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority. Clause (i) of Section 67(1) of Act, 1988 deals with fixing of fares and freights (including the maximum and minimum in respect thereof) for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages. Likewise, sub-section (2) enables the Government to issue any direction under sub-section (1) regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages and may provide that such fares or freights shall be inclusive of the tax payable by the passengers or the consignors of the goods, as the case may be, to the operators of the stage carriages, contract carriages or goods carriages under any law for the time being in force relating to tax on passengers and goods. 9. Therefore, on a reading of Section 67(1)(i) and sub-section (2) harmoniously, it is clear that fixation of the fares and freights for stage carriages are absolutely the domain of the State Government, and there is no dispute with respect to the same. However, the contention advanced by the appellants is that since only the State Government is empowered to fix the fares, the Regional Transport Authority is not vested with powers to fix the fare stages and therefore, the fixation of fare stages by the Regional Transport Authority overlooking the notification issued by the State Government is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. But, in our considered opinion, a reading of Rule 211 of Rules, 1989 will make it clear that the argument so advanced by the appellants is not having any legal foundation. 10. Rule 211, dealing with fixation of fare stages for stage carriages, reads thus: “211. Fixation of fare stages for stage carriages - In the case of stage carriages the State or Regional Transport Authority shall after such enquiry as it may deem desirable, fix fare stages on all routes. The maximum distance of each such stage shall not ordinarily exceed six kilometres and five hundred metres. When stages are so fixed, fare shall be collected according to stages: Provided that this rule shall not apply to vehicles of State Transport Undertaking.” 11. The maximum distance of each such stage shall not ordinarily exceed six kilometres and five hundred metres. When stages are so fixed, fare shall be collected according to stages: Provided that this rule shall not apply to vehicles of State Transport Undertaking.” 11. On an appreciation of the said provision, it is categoric, explicit and unequivocal that in the case of stage carriages, the State or the Regional Transport Authority is vested with powers, after making due enquiry as it may deem desirable, to fix fare stage on all routes. It is also amply clear from the said provision that the maximum distance of each such stage shall not ordinarily exceed 6 kms and 500 meters, and on fixation of stages, the fare shall be collected in accordance with the stages. Therefore, on a compendious reading of Section 67 of Act, 1988 and Rules 1989, it is evident that the powers enjoyed by the State Government as per Section 67, and the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 211 are different domains and viewed so, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellants that the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority interferes with the powers conferred on the State Government under Section 67 of Act, 1988 has no legal basis and justification. In fact, this issue was considered by this Court in the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 9803 of 2016 dated 20.07.2016 and held that the power enjoyed by the State Government fixing fare and the Regional Transport Authority fixing fare stages are two different exercise, and when the Regional Transport Authority fix the fare stages, it cannot be said that it is overlooking the powers of the State Government under Section 67 of Act, 1988. The learned single Judge has taken note of the said decision while rendering the impugned judgment and has arrived at the conclusion that Ext.P9 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority was in accordance with law. Moreover, the Regional Transport Authority has passed Ext.P9 order taking into account various pros and cons, and assigning reasons, which are primarily dependent on intrinsic factual circumstances also. 12. Moreover, the Regional Transport Authority has passed Ext.P9 order taking into account various pros and cons, and assigning reasons, which are primarily dependent on intrinsic factual circumstances also. 12. The distinction by and between the powers conferred under Section 67 of Act, 1988 and Rule 211 of Rules 1989 with the State Government and the Regional Transport Authority respectively would be clear from the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala vs. Sebastian, 1995 (1) KLT 421 . Paragraphs 3 and 4 read thus: “3. The first question that has to be dealt with in these appeals is regarding the nature and effect of a notification issued by the Government in exercise of the powers under S.67 of the 1988 Act. Section 67 inter-alia authorises the State Government to issue directions by notification in the Official Gazette to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities regarding the fixing of fares and freights of stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages. This power has to be exercised having regard to the advantages offered to the public, trade and industry by the development of motor transport, the desirability of coordinating road and rail transport, the desirability of preventing the deterioration of the road system and the desirability of preventing the uneconomic competition among holders of permits. This means that any notification issued under S.67 must have regard to the advantages offered to the public. In other words, while fixing fares and freights for stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages, the Government must have regard to the advantages offered to the public. Putting it differently, any notification regarding the fixing of fares and freights of stage carriages, contract carriages and goods carriages, provision can also be made for extending additional comforts and benefits to the public. It, therefore, follows that while fixing fares for stage carriages of different types, Government can certainly insist on the permit holders to offer more amenities and comforts to the travailing public. 4. If provisions are made in the notification issued under S.67 of the 1988 Act for Fast Passenger, Super Fast, Express and other fast bus services, they are certainly advantages to the travelling public. Such vehicles will certainly provide for quick and prompt transport service. Therefore, for different varieties of stage carriages, different rates of fare can be fixed by the Government. Such vehicles will certainly provide for quick and prompt transport service. Therefore, for different varieties of stage carriages, different rates of fare can be fixed by the Government. Such fixation of fare cannot be legally objected to.” 13. Moreover, it was on the basis of W.P. (C) No. 5482 of 2014 filed by the appellants, learned single Judge of this Court directed the Regional Transport Authority to re-consider the matter after providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellants and other interested persons. Therefore, appellants are not at liberty to turn around and contend that the Regional Transport Authority is not vested with any powers to alter fare stages, especially due to the fact that on the basis of the writ petition filed by the appellants, jurisdiction was conferred on the said authority by this Court and the said judgment has become conclusive and final also. Accordingly, we do not think that the appellants have made out a case so as to interfere with the findings rendered by the learned single Judge. 14. Upshot of the above discussion is that the appellants have not established any case before us to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the learned single Judge in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. 15. Needless to say, appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.