TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the fixation or alteration of a bus stand by the Regional Transport Authority was made under the general traffic-control power and was therefore not revisable, or whether it was made under the rule-making framework governing transport vehicles and was revisable; (ii) whether the application for revision under section 64A was barred by limitation and whether time ran from the date of the order or from the date when the order was notified or known; (iii) whether the earlier rejection of a revision application attracted the doctrine of merger so as to bar a second revision; and (iv) whether the revisional order was invalid for want of notice and opportunity of hearing.
Issue (i): Whether the fixation or alteration of a bus stand by the Regional Transport Authority was made under the general traffic-control power and was therefore not revisable, or whether it was made under the rule-making framework governing transport vehicles and was revisable.
Analysis: The power under section 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was held to concern parking places and halting stations in the sense of traffic control, not the establishment of bus stands as places where transport services commence or terminate. The scheme of section 68(2)(r), together with Rule 134 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, showed that notified stands for public service vehicles could be fixed or altered under the transport-control chapter. The earlier decision in Ibrahim's case was treated as authority for the proposition that bus-stand fixation could be made under section 68(2)(r), and not under section 76.
Conclusion: The fixation or alteration of the bus stand was held to fall under section 68 and the relevant rule, and the order was revisable under section 64A.
Issue (ii): Whether the application for revision under section 64A was barred by limitation and whether time ran from the date of the order or from the date when the order was notified or known.
Analysis: The section required the application to be made within thirty days from the date of the order, and the Court rejected the construction that would substitute knowledge for the statutory date. At the same time, the order fixing or discontinuing the bus stand was not treated as complete until the notification was issued, because the notification was the act that brought the notified stand into legal existence. On that footing, the relevant order was completed only when the notification was published.
Conclusion: The revision application was held not to be barred by limitation.
Issue (iii): Whether the earlier rejection of a revision application attracted the doctrine of merger so as to bar a second revision.
Analysis: The principle of merger applies only to an operative order that has come into existence. As the bus-stand order had not been completed when the first revision was disposed of, there was no operative order capable of merging in the revisional order. The later revision was therefore not barred on the ground of merger.
Conclusion: The second revision was held to be maintainable.
Issue (iv): Whether the revisional order was invalid for want of notice and opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: The second proviso to section 64A prohibited a prejudicial order without reasonable opportunity of being heard. That requirement had not been complied with before the revisional authority passed its order. The Court treated this infirmity as fatal to the order and exercised its constitutional power to secure a lawful reconsideration.
Conclusion: The revisional order was set aside for breach of the statutory requirement of hearing, and the matter was directed to be reconsidered after notice and hearing.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the revisional order was quashed, and the dispute was sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law after notice to affected persons and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: A bus-stand fixation order under the Motor Vehicles Act becomes effective only when duly notified; limitation under a provision calculated from the date of the order runs from the date of the completed order, and a prejudicial revisional order cannot stand unless the statute's hearing requirement is strictly observed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
