Decided on March 12,1969

Smt. Ratnagiri Kanakamma Appellant
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



CHINNAPPA REDDY,J. - (1.)On 29-6-1957 the Regional Transport authority, Chittoor granted two stage carriage permits on the route Chandragiri to Renugunta to the petitioners in these writ applications. On the ground that the original notification invited applications only for the grant of one stage carriage permit, the Government thought that the Regional Transport authority acted illegally in granting two stage carriage permits. Therefore purporting to exercise revisional powers under section 64 A of the Motor vehicles Act (State) the Government set aside the grant of the two permits in favour of the petitioners and directed the Regional Transport authority, Chittoor to deal with the matter afresh. The grantees of the two permits have filed these applications for the issue of writs to quash the order of the Government.
(2.)Smt. Amareswari submits that section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal to the appellate authority against the grant of stage carriage permits by the Regional Transport Authority and that the Government is not competent to exercise revisional powers under section 64-A unless the remedy provided by section 64 of the Act is exhausted by some aggrieved person invoking the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. She relies upon a judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Tansukh Rai v. Nilra-Tan Prasad, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1780. In that case the learned Judges were considering section 64-A (Bihar) and Central Sec. 64-A. of the Motor Vehicles Act. Their Lordships pointed out as the Central Act was enacted by the Parliament subsequent to the enactment of the Bihar Sec. 64 A the provisions of Bihar S. 64 A. would be invalid to the extent that they were repugnant to those of Central S. 64 A. Proceeding to consider the question that Bihar S. 64 A. was repugnant to S. 64 A, they observed :
"First we have to see whether there is any direct conflict between Central S. 64 A and Bihar S. 64-A. Such a conflict, to a certain extent, can arise if Bihar S. 64 A. be construed literally. The language of Bihar S. 64 A. 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 is 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 appeallable under S. 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 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".

(3.)It is, therefore clear that it is the view of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the Government can exercise its revisional powers under S. 64-A of the State Act only if there is no remedy provided by the Central Act against the order which they proposed to revise. In the present case there can be no doubt that appeals lie against the grant of stage carriage permits under S. 64 of the Act and the Government is therefore, precluded from exercising revisional powers and interfering directly with the orders of the Transport authority. The learned Government Pleader urges that since no appeals lie at the instance of the Transport Tribunals it must be considered that for the purpose of S. 64-A (State) no appeals lie and the Government is, therefore competent to interfere suo motu in revision. It is impossible to agree with the learned Government Pleader. Since appeals can be preferred only by aggrieved persons and not by Tribunals acting under the Act it will be meaningless to say that since the Tribunal cannot prefer an appeal the Government can suo motu exercise revisional powers. Both the writ petitions are, therefore allowed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100/- in each.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.