A petition in the High Court at Madras challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition came up for hearing on March 5, 1964 before a learned Single Judge. On the same date, this Court decided in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others(') that Government Order No. 1298 issued by the Government of Madras under s. 43-A as B introduced by the Madras Amending Act No. XX of 1948 in the Motor Vehicles Act, No. IV of 1939, could not be issued under that section inasmuch as it purported to give directions in respect of matters which had been entrusted to tribunals constituted under the Act and which had to be dealt with by them in quasi-judicial manner. In consequence this Court set aside the order of the · c Appellate Tribunal in that case as it was based on the provisions of the impugned Government Order. The decision of this Court, it seems, was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, and following that decision, he allowed the writ petition on March 10, 1964 and quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal leaving it free to dispose of the appeal afresh if it could do so or remit 0 the matter in its turn to the Transport Authority for fresh disposal. This led to a Letters Patent Appeal by the present appellant which was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court on April 22, 1964. The Principal argument before the Appeal Court was that every order of the transport authority or the anpelE late tribunal need not be quashed in view of the decision of this Court in Rajagopala Naidu's case('), but only those orders should be quashed which had proceeded on the basis of the Government Order referred to above. It was further contended that the present order of the Appellate Tribunal had not proceeded on the basis of the Government Order referred to above and therefo•e F need not be quashed. The Appeal Court did not accept the contention that the order of the Appellate Tribunal in the present case was not vitiated by being based on the Government Order in question. It consequently dismissed the appeal. It then considered the question as to what order should be passed in the circumstances. and whether the matter should be remanded to the G Transport Authority or to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal. It took the view that if in every case the remand was made to the Transport Authority it would lead to serious public inconvenience, for the consequence of the quashing of ordef5 of the Transport Authority would be that stage carriages on many routes would stop plying. The Appeal Court therefore thou<?ht H that unless there were exceptional reasons it would be sufficient if the order of the Appellate Tribunal alone was quashed and
