MUNICIPAL BOARD, PUSHKAR versus STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 21-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MUNICIPAL BOARD, PUSHKAR 
v. 
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, 
RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. W ANCHOO, K. C. DAS Gul"l.'A and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, lJ.) 
373 
Mawr Vehicles-Order of Regional TraMporl Aulliority 
shifting bus st.and-Ret•ision-Limitation-Mott>r Vehi<le& Act, 
1939 (4 of 11139), s.•. 64A, 68, 76, !ll(Z)-Rajasthan Motor 
Vekic!P.s Rules, 1955, r. 134-Constitution of India, Art. 142. 
The Municipal Board of Pushkar paS!Cd a resolution on 
May 24, 1948, for the shifting of the bus stand on the sacred 
lake to another site near the Police Station where it resolved to 
construct a passenger shed and provide other facilities for the 
pilgrims. The Regional Transport Authority by a resolution 
dated December 3/4, 1959, accrpted the suggestion and issued 
a public notification to that effect on June 28, 1960. Long 
before the notification, two residents of Pushkar moved the 
State Transport Authority under s. 64A of the Motor Vehicles 
Act for revision of the decision of the Regional Transport 
Authority dated December 3/4, 1959, changing the bus stand 
but that application was rejected on February 18, 1960. Another 
petition for the revision of the same orders under the same 
section was moved by certain bus operaton on April 13, 1960. 
The State Transport Authority on January 6, 1961, allowed 
that application, reversed the decision of the Regional Trans-
port Authority of December 3/~, 1959, and directed that the 
old bus stand should continue. The Municipal Board moved 
the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution against this 
order of State Transport Authority. The High Court rejected 
the application. The Board appealed to this f'..ourt by special 
leave. I ts case was that the order of the Regional Transport 
Authority changing the bus stand wa• made under 1. 76 of the 
Motor Vehicles/Act and, therefore, was not open to revision, 
that the revision applicatfon was barred by limitation and that 
the first revision application having been rejected the second did 
not lie inasmuch as on the rejection of the first, the Regional 
Transport Authority's order ceased to exist having merged itJ 
the State Transport Authority's order. 
1962 
H...,.btr, 21. 
1962 
MunUi~l ... ,,, 
l'ush#.:ar 
v. 
Sl•I• TrlfM/WI 
.4.uthorih, 
R•jatho11 
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
Held (per curiam), that it was well settled that equitable 
considerations have no place in interpreting provision. of limi-
tation and their strict grammatical meaning bas to be adhered 
to. The expression "date of the order" in the first proviJo to 
s. 6M of the Act, therefore, could not mean the date of the 
knowledge of the order. 
p.,. Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Ayyangar, 
lJ. The order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the 
new bus stand and di.continuing the old was one m'lde not 
under s. 76 of the Act, which had no application, but under 
r. 134 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1955, made in 
exercise of the powers ronferred by s. 68 (2) (r) the Motor 
V chicles Act. 11te order was, therefure, open to revision under 
s. 64A by the State Transport Authority. 
T. R. lbraliim v. &gional Trmuporl Atdlwmy, Ta,.jore, 
[1953] S.C.R. 290, applied. 
Section 76 had nothing to do with the fixation or altera-
tion of a bus stand. Although the word 'bus stand' had not 
been defined in the Act, it was clear that a bus stand meant a 
place where bus services commenced or tcnninated. Section 76, 
properly construed, dealt with the detennination of parking 
places referred to bys. 91(2l(e) of the Act. The fixation of 
bus stands was withins. 68(2)(r) of the Act and the power to 
issue the necessary notification was implied in that clause. 
Nagmdraflllll v. BvuA, A.I.R. (1932) P.C. 165, <hmral 
Accidetst J'ir< a"4 Li/• ~ 
Ourpuralimt 
Ltd. 
v. 
Ja,."""""-.J Abdtll RaAi11&, A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 6 and Boota Mal 
v. u,.fo,. of India, [1963) I S.C.R. 70, referred to. 
In the instant cue the cft'ective order fixing the new bus 
stand was made not by the declaration of intention in the 
resolution of December 3/4, 1959, but by the publication of 
the notification on June 28, ·1960, and the impugned application 
for revision under s. 64A of the Act having been made before 
that date, no question of limitation rould arise. 
The1e was no scope for the application of the principle of 
merger in the present cue since the State Transport Authority's 
order rejecting the fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.