Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 258 of 1967. Appeal front the judgment and order dated October 3	 1966 of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 1159 of 1966. G. Ramaswamy	 R. Gopalakrishnan and K. K. Venugopal	 for the appellant. M.N. Ranghachari	 M.K. Ramamurthy	 Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar	 for respondent No.1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri	 J. This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras is directed against its order dated October 3	 1966	 15 allowing the writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution by M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd.	 Kumbakonam	 and quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority	 Thanjavur	 dated March 28	 1966	 whereby the Regional Transport Authority had granted the application for variation of the route Sirkali to	 Kumbakonam of M/s Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd. Kumbakonam	 in respect of two stage carriages. On December 9	 1965	 the application of M/s Sri Ram Vilas Service Ltd.	 Kumbakonam for variation of the route Sirkali to	 Kumbakonam was notified under section 57(3) of the . M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd.	 among others	 filed objections and after hearing the objections	 by order dated March 28	 1966	 the Regional Transport Authority	 Thanjavur	 granted the application as	 according to it	 the variation applied for was in the interest of the travelling public. The distance covered by the variation extended beyond 24 kilometers. M/s Raman & Raman (P) Ltd. filed the petition under Art 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The question which arises in this appeal is whether the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to vary the route by extending it beyond 24 kms. The High Court	 following its earlier decision in M/s Swami Motor Transport (P) Ltd. vs M/s Murugan Transports	 Tiruchirapalli and Others(1) held that "any variation in excess of 24 kilometers would be ex facie illegal and violation of the intendment of the legislature enacting Act 3 of 1964. " The answer to the question posed above depends upon the true construction of some sections of the . as amended by the Madras Act III of 1964. The relevant statutory provisions are as follows : "48(1). Subject to the provisions of section 47	 a Regional Transport Authority may on an application made to it under section 46	 grant a stage carriage pen nit in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit; Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the	 application. (3)The Regional Transport Authority	 if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit	 may grant the permit for service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one or more particular stage carriages	 and may	 subject to any rules that may be made under this Act	 (1) Writ Petition No. 3744 of 1965	 judgement dated September 7	 1966. 16 attach to the permit any one or more of the	 following conditions	 namely : (i)that the stage carriage or stage carriages shall be used only on a specified route or routes or in a specified area. . . (xxi)that the Regional Transport Authority	 may after giving notice of not less than one month : (a)vary	 extend or curtail the route or routes or the area specified in the permit. Provided that in the case of (i)variation	 the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by variation shall not exceed 24 kms. (ii)extension of the distance covered by the extension shall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini (aa) vary any other condition of the permit." "section 57(8). An application to vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by the variation	 extension or curtailment of the route or routes or area specified in the permit or in the case of a stage 	carriage permit	 by increasing the number of services above the specified maximum	 or in the case of a contract carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles	 covered by the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. " "Rule 208. (a) Upon application made in writing by the holder of any permit	 the Transport Authority may	 at any time	 in its discretion	 vary the permit or any of the conditions thereof subject to the provisions 	of sub rule (b). (b)If the application is for the variation of the permit by the inclusion of an additional vehicle or vehicles or if the grant of variation would authorize transport facilities materially different from those authorized by the original permit the Transport Authority shall deal with the application as if it were an application for a permit. Provided that nothing contained in this rule shall prevent the Transport Authority or its Secretary	 if authorized in this behalf	 from summarily rejecting an application for the variation of a stage carriage permit 17 so as to provide transport facilities on a road which has been or is certified to be unfit for motor vehicular traffic by an officer not below the rank of Divisional Engineer of the Highways Department. (c)Every application for variation of conditions of permit under sub section (8) of section 57 of the Act in respect of a transport vehicle shall be. in form PVA. (d)The provisions of rules 163(b) shall	 mutatis mutandis	 apply to application for the variation of a permit or the variation of the counter signature	 if any	 thereof by the inclusion of an additional vehicle sanctioned subject to the production of the registration certificate of the additional vehicle. " Section 5 of the Madras Act III of 1964	 reads as follows " 5(1). Notwithstanding anything contained in the principal Act	 the route or routes or the area specified in every stage carriage permit granted before the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be a condition attached to such permit under sub section (3) of section 48 of the principal Act	 as if this Act were in force on the date of grant of such permit. (2)Notwithstanding any judgment or order of any Court	 all proceedings taken for the grant of	 and all orders passed granting any variation	 extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in a stage carriage permit before the commencement of this Act by the State Transport Authority or by a Regional Transport Authority or by an authority or person to whom the powers and functions of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority have been delegated	 or by an authority exercising the powers of appeal or revision against the orders of the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority	 shall not be deemed to	 be invalid merely by reason of the fact that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authortiy	 as the case may be	 had no power to grant such variation	 extension or curtailment and all such proceedings taken or orders passed shall be deemed always to have been validly taken or passed in accordance with law notwithstanding the distance covered by the variation or extension exceeded twenty four kilometers." The learned counsel for the respondent contends that section 4 8 3 (xxi)	 as amended	 operates whether a condition to that effect has been put in a permit or not. But we are unable to read section 48 18 in this sense. Section 48 (3) clearly enables the Regional Transport Authorityto attach to the permit any or one of the twenty one conditions. It may in a particular case put one or two or more of the condition	; or it may put all the conditions. It seems to be common ground that if any of the first twenty conditions in section 48(3) is not attached to a permit it will not have effect. What makes condition (xxi) different is hard to appreciate. If condi tion (xxi) as amended is not attached to a permit it is difficult to see how the Regional Transport Authority can derive any power from the existence of section 48 (3) (xxi) in the Act. Section 5 (1) of Act If of 1964 makes the route or routes or the area specified in every stage carriage permit granted before the commencement of the Amending Act a condition attached to such permit tinder subsection (3) of section 48 of the principal Act; it does not say that section 48(3) (xxi) shall be deemed to be a condition attached to every such permit. The learned counsel for the respondent says that this was theintention of the amendment	 but if this was so	 the intention has not been carried out. It was argued before us that the history of legislation supports the interpretation placed by the High Court but	 in our view	 the Act as it stands amended by Act III of 1964 is quite clear and it is not necessary to go into the history of the legislation. It seems to us that the High Court erred in holding that section 48 (3) (xxi) of the Act	 as amended	 by itself gave power to the Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits. This power	 in our View	 Would be exercisable only if a condition to that effect is put in the permit. In the case of the appellant we saw the permit and what it contained was a condition similar to the condition mentioned in section 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act If 1 of 1964. Therefore	 for the purpose of this appeal we must treat section 48 (3) (xxi)	 as amended	 as nonexistent. If section 48(3)(xxi)	 as amended	 is treated as non existent	 then there can be no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that no limitation had been placed on the powers of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of the grant of applications for variation of the route. The order of the Regional Transport Authority cannot	 therefore	 be challenged as being beyond its jurisdiction. Another question that was debated before us was whether r. 208 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules	 extracted above	 confer powers on a Transport Authority to vary permits or whether it is merely a procedural rule. It seems to us that as the Act stands at present	 r. 208 does confer power on a transport authority to vary all kinds of permits or conditions attached therein. This power is exercised on an application made in writing by the holder of any permit. 19 It follows from the above reasoning that the Regional Trans port Authority had the authority under r. 208 to vary the permit and nothing contained in section 48 (3) (xxi) limited its power in respect of the distance covered by the variation in this	 case. We may mention that it was argued before us that section 57(8) is not merely procedural but also implies a power to receive applications and vary the conditions in a permit. This may be so	 but it is not necessary to decide in this case because in Madras r. 208 clearly confers power on the Transport Authority to vary the conditions of the permit. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court set aside. The appellant will have the costs incurred in. this Court.

The appellant 's application for variation of a route extending beyond 24 kilometers was accepted by the Regional Transport Authority. The respondent	 who had unsuccessfully objected before the Authority filed a writ petition in the High Court to quash the order. The High Court accepted the writ petition holding that any variation in excess of 24 kilometers was ex facie illegal and violation of the intendment of the legislature enacting Madras Act 3 of 1964. which amended the Motor Vehicles Act. In appeals this Court	 HELD : The Regional Transport Authority had authority under r. 208 to vary the permit and nothing contained in section 48(3)(xxi) of the Motor Vehicles Act limited its power in respect of the distance covered by the variation in this case. [19A] Section 5(1) of Madras Act 3 of 1964 made the route or routes or the area specified in every stage carriage permit granted before the commencement of the Amending Act a condition attached to such permit tinder sub section (3) of section 48 of the Principal Act; it did not that section 48(3)(xxi) shall be deemed to be condition attached to every such permit. [18c] The High Court erred in holding that section 48(3)(xxi) of the Act	 is amended. by itself gave power to the Regional Transport Authority to vary the route within certain limits. This power Could be exercised only if a condition to that effect was put in the permit. In the case of the appellant the permit contained a condition similar to the condition mentioned in section 48 (3) (xxi) before its amendment by Act 3 of f 964. Therefore	 for the purpose of this appeal section 48(3)(xxi). is amendment has to be treated 	is non existent. [18E G]