Section 68 permits constituting the State Transport Authority by designation rather than naming individual officeholders.

The petitioners challenged a notification dated 9 February 2026 reconstituting the State Transport Authority (STA), arguing that it was inconsistent with Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including because the Secretary’s appointment should be made separately under the Rules.

The High Court stayed that notification on 16 June 2026, after the State acknowledged irregularities and indicated that it would take steps to amend the notification.

The State subsequently issued a notification dated 10 August 2026, constituting the STA with an Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary-level officer nominated by the State as Chairman and the Transport Commissioner as member.

The petitioners amended their petition to challenge the new notification.

The Court considered the challenge to the 10 August notification; the earlier notification had been superseded.

Whether Section 68(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act permits the State Government to constitute the STA by designating the Chairman’s office and providing for nomination of an officer to that office, rather than naming a specific individual in the notification.

Whether the 10 August 2026 notification was invalid because it referred to Section 68(2), or because it conferred uncontrolled or unchanneled powers on the STA.

Section 68(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act authorises the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to constitute an STA to exercise the powers and functions specified in subsection (3); subsection (2) prescribes qualifications and disqualifications for the Chairman.

The Court applied the principles that, where statutory language admits of more than one interpretation, a construction producing absurdity or unconstitutionality should be avoided, and that statutory provisions should be construed purposively to avoid manifestly absurd or unjust results.

It relied on Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Vimal Kumar Surana, (2011) 1 SCC 534; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia, (2008) 3 SCC 279; and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372.

The Court also applied the presumption of constitutionality when assessing the validity of the notification.

Section 68(1) does not require the State to name an individual Chairman each time it constitutes the STA.

The notification’s provision for a nominated Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary-level officer therefore did not amount to an impermissible sub-delegation; appointment and nomination by the State were treated as equivalent for this purpose.

The statutory qualification requirements in Section 68(2) would apply when an individual is nominated, and the petitioners had not argued that officers at the specified level lacked the relevant judicial, appellate, revisional or adjudicatory experience.

The reference to subsection (2) did not, by itself, invalidate the notification.

Nor did the conferral of the functions specified in Section 68(3) make the notification unlawful, since that authority follows from Section 68(1), whose validity was not challenged.

It recalled the interim stay of that notification and noted that the earlier stay had ceased to have effect following supersession of the 9 February notification.

The petition was dismissed, and the State Government was left at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.