Case: Tansukh Rai Jain Vs. Nilratan Prasad Shaw And Others

action under Central S. 64-A. The aggrieved person cannot have recourse to action under Bihar S. 64-A without first taking action under Central S. 64-A. To the extent that the language of Bihar S. 64-A can cover the cases open to appeal and to revision under S. 64 and Central S. 64-A respectively, it will be in direct conflict with the provisions of the Central Act and Bihar S. 64-A will be void to that extent.8. Bihar S. 64-A it is argued for the respondent, is wholly void as by Central S. 64-A Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the said subject matter of revisions. It is also urged that Bihar S. 64-A is wholly void as both that section an Central S. 64-A cover the same field. On these very grounds, it is urged that by enacting Central S. 64-A Parliament has repealed by implication Bihar S. 64-A as it was competent to do in view of the proviso to Cl. (2) of Art. 254.9. Repeal, by implication, is not to be easily inferred. It is to be expected that when Parliament was aware of the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A and of Art. 254 of the Constitution and it intended to repeal Bihar S. 64-A, it would have expressly stated so. There is nothing in Central S. 64-A or in any other provision of the Act which expressly states that Bihar S. 64-A is repealed. We are of opinion that the mere fact that Central S. 64-A deals with revisions against non-appealable orders of the Regional Transport Authority is not sufficient to conclude that Parliament intended to repeal Bihar S. 64-A.10. The language of Bihar S. 64-A is very wide and covers all orders made by any authority or officer in the course of any proceedings taken under Chapter IV of the Act. The only limitation on the exercise of the revisional power conferred on the State by Bihar S. 64-A is that the State cannot suo motu exercise that power. It can exercise it when moved an application by some person aggrieved with the order he seeks to be revised. Such orders can be orders of the State Transport Authority, the Regional Transport Authority or any other authority or officer. Central S. 64-A provides for revisions against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and does not provide for revisions against the orders of the prescribed authority to whom appeals could be preferred under S. 64. Central S. 64-A can therefore preclude the State Government from entertaining revisions against non-appealable orders of the Regional Transport Authority, but cannot preclude the operation of Bihar S. 64-A in regard to other orders. It is not provide in the Act that the order passed by the State Transport Authority in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Central S. 64-A would be final. If such a provision had been made it might have been possible to urge that Parliament intended that the order of the State Transport Authority in revision was not to be interfered with by any authority. The absence of such an expression therefore leads to the inference that Parliament did not intend that there be no interference with such orders of revision. Further it may be noticed that S. 64 does not exhaust the list of all appealable orders. Its Cl. (I) provides for an appeal by a person aggrieved by any other order which may be prescribed. Prescribed means prescribed by rules made under the Act. Sub-section (1) of S. 68 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV which consists of Ss. 42 to 68. Sub-section (2) specifies certain matters with respect to which rules be made. Its clause (za) mentions any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed. It follows that the State Government can make rules providing for certain order to be appealable under S. 64 and thus reduce the orders which otherwise would come within the ambit of Central S. 64-A. The orders made appealable under the rules framed by a State would not be open to revision under S. 64-A as it provides for revisions against non-appealable orders only. It is clear therefore that Parliament cannot be imputed the intention to make the provisions of S. 64-A to be so exhaustive and complete as to lead to the necessary conclusion that thereby it intended to repeal the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A which gave power to the State of Bihar to revise orders made by authorities or officers in proceedings under Chapter IV.11. The provisions of Bihar S. 64-A and Central S. 64-A are not such that they cannot be complied with simultaneously, except for the contingency already mentioned, i.e., when an application is made to the State Government by a person aggrieved by such and order of the Regional Transport Authority which is not appealable under S. 64. In such a case, the State Government cannot exercise its power under Bihar S. 64-A against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, though it would be free to exercise that power at a later stage after the State Transport Authority had disposed of the revision, if any, made to it. Revision, in the first instance, against non-appealable orders passed under Chapter IV, must go to the State Transport Authority as in respect of such orders Parliament must be taken to have varied the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A.12. We therefore hold that Bihar S. 64-A is neither void nor has been repealed by Central S. 64-A and that its scope has been limited only to this extent that revisions against such orders of the Regional Transport Authority which are not appealable have to be preferred to the State Transport Authority.13. In the present case the State Government of Bihar revised the order made by the appellate authority. It was competent to do so. The High Court was in error in holding otherwise

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The power of revision therefore will arise and will be exercised after the appellate power is exhausted and not when the aggrieved person has not appealed against the order. Similarly, it will be available only against non-appealable orders after the aggrieved person has taken action under Central S. 64-A. The aggrieved person cannot have recourse to action under Bihar S. 64-A without first taking action under Central S. 64-A. To the extent that the language of Bihar S. 64-A can cover the cases open to appeal and to revision under S. 64 and Central S. 64-A respectively, it will be in direct conflict with the provisions of the Central Act and Bihar S. 64-A will be void to that extent.The provisions of Bihar S. 64-A and Central S. 64-A are not such that they cannot be complied with simultaneously, except for the contingency already mentioned, i.e., when an application is made to the State Government by a person aggrieved by such and order of the Regional Transport Authority which is not appealable under S. 64. In such a case, the State Government cannot exercise its power under Bihar S. 64-A against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, though it would be free to exercise that power at a later stage after the State Transport Authority had disposed of the revision, if any, made to it. Revision, in the first instance, against non-appealable orders passed under Chapter IV, must go to the State Transport Authority as in respect of such orders Parliament must be taken to have varied the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A.12. We therefore hold that Bihar S. 64-A is neither void nor has been repealed by Central S. 64-A and that its scope has been limited only to this extent that revisions against such orders of the Regional Transport Authority which are not appealable have to be preferred to the State Transport Authority.13. In the present case the State Government of Bihar revised the order made by the appellate authority. It was competent to do so. The High Court was in error in holding otherwise