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

The appellant Tansukh Rai Jain, was one of the applicants for the stage-carriage permit for an inter-State route between Bihar and Orissa. The State Transport Authority, Bihar, granted the permit to the United Motor Works, and Co. Ltd. The appellant and respondent No. 1. Nilratan Prasad Shaw, appealed to the appellate authority, the Deputy Minister of Transport, Bihar, against the order of the State Transport authority. The appellate authority reversed the order and granted the permit to Shaw, respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the appellant went in revision to the Bihar Government, in view of Bihar S. 64-A. The Transport Minister set aside the order of the appellate authority and granted the permit to Jain, the appellant. Shaw, respondent No. 1, then filed a writ petition in the High Court and prayed for the quashing of the order of the Transport Minister and for the restoration of the order of the appellate authority granting the permit to him. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that Bihar S. 64-A did not apply to stage-carriage permits for inter-State routes and that therefore the Bihar Government was incompetent to revise the order of the appellate authority.

Court's reasoning:
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