TANSUKH RAI JAIN versus NILRATAN PRASAD SHAW AND OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 04-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TANSUKH RAI JAIN 
v. 
NILRATAN PRASAD SHAW AND OTHERS 
November 4, 1964 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, RAGHUBAR DAYAL 
AND J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.] 
l -
Constitution of India, Art. 254(1)(2)-Motor Vehicles Act, (Act 4 of 
1939), s. 64A whether renders void or repeals s. 64A of the Motor Vehicles 
(Bihar Amendment) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act 27 of 1950). 
The Bihar State Legislature by Act 27 of 1950 introduced s. 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. Subse-
quent to this by Act JOO of 1956 Parliament introduced another s. 64A into 
the Act prQviding that re\ision would lie to the State Transport Authority 
from the non-appcalable orders of Regional Transport Authority. 
Respondent No. I filed a writ petition before the High Court challeng-
ing an order of the Stare Government under s. 64A of Bihar Act 27 of 
1950. 
By the said order the State Government had granted a stage 
carriage permit lo the appellant setting aside an order of the Appellate 
Authority in favour of Respondent No. I. The High Court held that 
Bihar s. 64A did not apply to singe carriage permits for inter-State routes 
and therefore the order of the Siate Government made under that section 
was bad. 
1·he aj:lpellant thereu!1on filed an appeal before the Supreme 
Court \Vith certific8.te. 
Before the appeal was heard, the Supreme Court 
had already decided in another case that there was nothing in Bihur s. 64A 
to render it inapplicable to stage carriage permits for inter-State routes, 
thus reversing the High Court's Jecision on that point. Respondent No. 1 
therefore sought. and was given permission to challenge the order of 
the State Government on another ground, namely, that Central s. 64A 
had by vitrue of the pro,-isions of cls. (!) and (21 of Art. 254 of the 
Constitution rendered void or impliedly repealed Bihar '· 64A. 
It was 
urged that Central s. 64A was exhaustive, that it covered the s<imc field 
as Bihar s. 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-
appealahle orders of the Regional Transport Authority, it did ·not confer 
any finalitv on the orders passed by the former and it was open to the 
Bihar Legi.'\lature to provide further remedies. 
l\1oreover the scope of 
Central s.~ 64A could be enlarged or reduced bv the State Government which 
had po1.ver under s. 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 s. 64A and Bihar s. 64A covered 
the same field. 
Central s. 64A onlv dealt with revisions against the 
order~ of the Ref!ional Transport Authoritv. \vhile Bihar s. 64A had a 
much wider operi1tion givin<! to the State Government power to revise 
orders of any aut.horitv or officer in proceedin~s under Ch. JV of the Act. 
Such orders could be those of the State Transport Authoritv. and the 
Appellate Authority besides other authorities and officers, [11 C-D, G-Hl 
,
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
T. R, .JAIN V. NILRATAN SHAW (Dayal, J.) 
7 
A 
(iii) The language of Bihar s. 64A is very general. Literally construed 
it can be said to be in conftict with both s. 64 and Central s. 64A, inu-
much as it can cover cases open to appeal under the former section, and to 
revision under the latter seotion. To the extent of this repugnance Bihar 
s. 64A is void. 
But the section as a whole is not void nor has it been 
repealed by Central s. 64A; its scope has been limited only to this extent · 
that re•isions against such orders of the Regional Transport Authority 
which are not appcalable. have to be preferred to the State Transport 
B 
Authority. [JOA, D, H; 12C] 
Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 8, applied. 
S. K. Pasari v. Abdul G/lafoor, C.A. No. 306 of 1964 decided on 
4-S-64 and Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey, 
[1963] 3 S.C.R., 
523, referred to. 
In the present case the State Government of Bihar revised the order 
C 
made by the Appellate Authority. It was competent to do so. The High 
Court was in error in holding otherwise. [12Dl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 538 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and order, dated September 25, 
1963 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.