Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 538 of 1964. Appeal from the judgment and order	 dated September 25	 1963 of the Patna High Court in Misc. Judicial Case No. 1381 of 1962. K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and K. R. Chaudhuri	 for the appel lant. M. C. Setalvad	 D. P. Singh	 section C. Agarwal and M. K. Rama murthy	 for the respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raghubar Dayal	 J. This appeal	 on certificate granted by the High Court of Patna	 raises the question whether section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act as introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act	 1949 (Bihar Act XXVII of 1950)	 hereinafter referred to as Bihar section 64A	 was not applicable to proceedings for grant of permit for inter State routes. This question	 however	 was decided by this Court in section K. Pasari vs Abdul Ghafoor(1). It was held that it was applicable to cases of stage carriage permits for inter State routes. The respondent prayed	 in view of the observations in Abdul Mateen vs Ram Kailash Pandey (2) for permission to challenge the validity of the aforesaid section on the ground that Parliament	 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act	 1956 (Act No. 100 of 1956)	 has introduced another section 64A in the (Act TV of 1939)	 hereinafter referred to as Central section 64A and that thereby Bihar section 64A must be taken to have been repealed by necessary implication. (1) Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1964	 decided on 4 5 64. (2) ; 8 The question arises in this way. 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 & 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 section 64A. 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 section 64A did not apply to stage carriage permits for interState routes and that therefore the Bihar Government was incompetent to revise the order of the appellate authority. It is urged for the respondent that the provisions of Bihar section 64A are repugnant to those of Central section 64A and are therefore void in view of cl. (1) of article 254. It is also urged that the Central Act has repealed Bihar section 64A by enacting Central section 64A in the exercise of the power it had under the proviso to article 254(2). If the provisions of Bihar section 64A are repugnant to any extent with those of Central section 64A	 Bihar section 64A will be void to the extent of the repugnancy in view of cl. (1) of article 254 of the Constitution. As the Central Act was enacted by Parliament subsequent to the enactment of Bihar section 64A	 the provisions of the main part of cl. (2) of article 254 will not apply to make Bihar section 64A good within the State of Bihar	 even though it had received the assent of the President	 as those provisions applied when the Central Act is enacted earlier than the State law. We have therefore to see whether the provisions of Bihar section 64A are repugnant to those of Central section 64A. The tests for determining whether a certain provision of a State law is repugnant to the provisions of a law made by Parliament are stated thus	 in Deep Chand vs The State of Uttar Pradesh(1) : "Repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles (1) [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8	 43. 9 (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislature occupy the same field. " We may now refer to the two sections	 Central section 64A and Bihar section 64A : "Central section 64A : The State Transport Authority may	 either on its motion or on an application made to it	 call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a Regional Transport Authority and in which no appeal lies	 and if it appears to the State Transport Authority that the order made by the Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal	 the State Transport Authority may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit : Provided that the State Transport Authority shall not entertain any application from a person aggrieved by an order of a Regional Transport Authority	 unless the application is made within thirty days from the date of the order: Provided further that the State Transport Authority shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard." "Bihar section 64A : The State Government may	 on application made to it in this behalf	 within thirty days of the passing of the order in the course of any proceedings taken under this Chapter by any authority or officer subordinate to it	 call for the records of such proceedings	 and after examining such records pass such order as it thinks fit. " The words 'subordinate to it ' in Bihar section 64A	 were omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act	 1953 (Bihar Act 1 of 1954). This was however not noticed when Bihar section 64A was quoted in Pasari 's case(2). First we have to see whether there is any direct conflict between Central section 64A and Bihar section 64A. Such a conflict	 to a (1) Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1964	 decided on 4 5 64. Sup.165 2 10 certain extent	 can arise if Bihar section 64A be construed literally. The language of Bihar section 64A is very general and empowers the State Government to revise any order made in the course of any proceedings taken under Chapter IV and pass such orders as it thinks fit. It must	 however	 be so construed	 if possible	 as not to come in conflict with the provisions of the Central Act. The power of revision vested in the State Government under its provisions are to come into play only when the Central Act does not provide any remedy against the orders proposed to be revised. Certain orders have been made appealable under section 64 of the Act. 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 section 64A. The aggrieved person cannot have recourse to action under Bihar section 64A without first taking action under Central section 64A. To the extent that the language of Bihar section 64A can cover the cases open to appeal and to revision under section 64 and Central section 64A respectively	 it will be in direct conflict with the provisions of the Central Act and Bihar section 64A will be void to that extent. Bihar section 64A	 it is argued for the respondent	 is wholly void as by Central section 64A Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the said subject matter of revisions. It is also urged that Bihar section 64A is wholly void as both that section and Central section 64A cover the same field. On these very grounds	 it is urged that by enacting Central section 64A Parliament has revealed by implication Bihar section 64A as it was competent to do in view of the proviso to cl. (2) of article 254. Repeal	 by implication	 is not to be easily inferred. It is to be expected that when Parliament was aware of the provisions of Bihar section 64A and of article 254 of the Constitution and it intended to repeal Bihar section 64A	 it would have expressly stated so. There is nothing in Central section 64A or in any other provision of the Act which expressly states that Bihar section 64A is repealed. We are of opinion that the mere fact that Central section 64A deals with revisions against non appealable orders of the Regional Transport Authority is not sufficient to conclude that Parliament intended to repeal Bihar section 64A. The language of Bihar section 64A is very wide and covers all orders made by any authority or officer in the course of any proceedings taken under Chapter TV of the Act. The only limitation on the exercise of the revisional power conferred on the State 11 by Bihar section 64A is that the State cannot suo motu exercise that power. It can exercise it when moved on 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 section 46A 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 section 64. Central section 64A 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 section 64A in regard to other orders. It is not provided in the Act that the order passed by the State Transport Authority in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Central section 64A 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 section 64 does not exhaust the list of all appealable orders. Its cl.(1) 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 '. Subsection (1) of section 68 empowers the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV which consists of sections 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 orders to be appealable under section 64 and thus reduce the orders which otherwise would come within the ambit of Central section 64A. The orders made appealable under the rules framed by a State would not be open to revision under section 64A 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 section 64A to be so exhaustive and complete as to lead to the necessary conclusion that thereby it intended to repeal the provisions of Bihar section 64A which gave power to the State of Bihar to revise orders made by authorities or officers in proceedings under Chapter IV. The provisions of Bihar section 64A and Central section 64A are not such that they cannot be complied with simultaneously	 except for the contingency already mentioned	 i.e.	 when an application is 12 made to the State Government by a person aggrieved by such an order of the Regional Transport Authority which be not appeal	able under section 64. In such a case	 the State Government cannot exercise its power under Bihar section 64A 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 section 64A. We therefore hold that Bihar section 64A is neither void nor has been repealed by Central section 64A 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. 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. We therefore allow the appeal with costs	 set aside the order of the High Court and restore that of the State of Bihar granting permit to the appellant Jain. Appeal allowed.

The Bihar State Legislature by Act 27 of 1950 introduced section 64A into the Motor Vehicles Act (Central Act IV of 1939). By that section power was given to the State Government to revise orders of authorities and officers in proceedings under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequent to this by Act 100 of 1956 Parliament introduced another section 64A into the Act providing that revision would lie to the State Transport Authority from the non appealable orders of Regional Transport Authority. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order of the State Government under section 64A of Bihar Act 27 of 1950. By the said order the State Government had granted a stage carriage permit to the appellant setting aside an order of the Appellate Authority in favour of Respondent No. 1. The High Court held that Bihar section 64A did not apply to stage carriage permits for inter State routes and therefore the order of the State Government made under that section was bad. The appellant thereupon filed an appeal before the Supreme Court with certificate. Before the appeal was heard	 the Supreme Court had already decided in another case that there was nothing in Bihar section 64A to render it inapplicable to stage carriage permits for inter State routes	 thus reversing the High Court 's decision on that point. Respondent No. 1therefore sought	 and was given permission to challenge the order of the State Government on another ground	 namely	 that Central section 64A had by vitrue of the provisions of cls. (1) and (2) of article 254 of the Constitution rendered void or impliedly repealed Bihar section 64A. It was urged that Central section 64A was exhaustive	 that it covered the same field as Bihar section 64A	 and that the two sections were directly repugnant. HELD : (i) Central section 64A could not said to be exhaustive. While it provided for revision to the State Transport Authority against the non appealable orders of the Regional Transport Authority	 it did not confer	 any finality on the orders passed by the former and it was open to the Bihar Legislature to provide further remedies. Moreover the scope of Central section 64A could be enlarged or reduced by the State Government which had power under section 68 to determine which orders of the Regional Transport Authority would be appealable. [11 B C	 F H] (ii) Nor could it be said that Central section 64A and Bihar section 64A covered the same field. Central section 64A only dealt with revisions against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority	 while Bihar section 64A bad a much wider operation giving to the State Government power to revise orders of any authority or officer in proceedings under Ch. IV of the Act. Such orders could be those of the State Transport Authority	 and the Appellate Authority besides other authorities and officers	 [11 C D	 G H] 7 (iii) The language of Bihar section 64A is very general	 Literally construed it can be said to be in conflict with both section 64 and Central section 64A	 inasmuch as it can cover cases open to appeal under the former section	 and to revision under the latter section. To the extent of this repugnance Bihar section 64A is void. But the section as a whole is not void nor has it been repealed by Central section 64A; 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. [110	 D	 H; 12C] Deep Chand vs State of Uttar Pradesh	 [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8	 applied. section K. Pasari vs Abdul Ghafoor	 C.A. No. 306 of 1964 decided on 4 5 64 and Abdul Mateen vs Ram Kailash Pandey	 ; 	 referred to. 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.