Costs under the Act are confined to express statutory power, while revision may be rejected without oral hearing.

The Act confines the award of costs to the express provision empowering the High Court to grant them; revisional and appellate authorities do not have any general or inherent power to award costs against a dealer. The revisional power is discretionary, and where the statute requires only consideration of the application and reasons for rejection, a reasonable opportunity of oral hearing need not be implied before dismissal of a revision application. A refusal to entertain or revise is not, by itself, an order adversely affecting the applicant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether costs may be awarded against a dealer in proceedings under the Act except by the High Court under the relevant costs provision; and (ii) whether the Commissioner may dismiss a revision application under the revisional provision without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Issue (i): Whether costs may be awarded against a dealer in proceedings under the Act except by the High Court under the relevant costs provision.

Analysis: The costs power under the Act was held to be confined to the express provision enabling the High Court to award costs. The revisional and appellate authorities under the Act were not found to possess any general or inherent power to award costs in proceedings under the statute.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the negative. Costs could not be awarded against a dealer except in the manner authorised by the Act.

Issue (ii): Whether the Commissioner may dismiss a revision application under the revisional provision without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Analysis: The revisional power was held to be discretionary. The requirement to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard applied to an order that would adversely affect a person, but a refusal to entertain or revise an order was not treated as an order adversely affecting the applicant. The statutory requirement to consider the application and record reasons for rejection was distinguished from a requirement of oral hearing before rejection.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in the affirmative. The Commissioner could dismiss the revision application without first giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by rejecting the costs objection while upholding the validity of summary rejection of revision applications by the Commissioner, leaving the applicant successful only on the costs issue.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers a discretionary revisional power and separately requires only consideration of the application and recorded reasons for rejection, a right to oral hearing before rejection cannot be implied unless the statute expressly says so; an order refusing to exercise discretionary revision is not, by itself, an order adversely affecting the applicant.

---