9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) was made under Section 76 or Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Whether the application for revision was barred by limitation. 3. Whether the State Transport Authority (STA) could entertain a second revision application after rejecting the first one. 4. Compliance with the second proviso to Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) was made under Section 76 or Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act: The first question was whether the RTA's order was made under Section 76 or Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 76 deals with the control of traffic and gives the State Government or any authorized authority the power to determine places where motor vehicles may stand. Section 68, on the other hand, deals with the control of transport vehicles and empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act, including the fixation of bus stands. The judgment referred to the precedent set in T. B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, where it was held that Section 68(2)(r) of the Act empowers the State Government to frame rules allowing the RTA to fix or alter bus stands. The Court concluded that the RTA's order was made under a rule framed under Section 68 and thus was liable to revision under Section 64A. 2. Whether the application for revision was barred by limitation: Section 64A provides that the STA shall not entertain any application for revision unless it is made within 30 days from the date of the order. The appellant argued that the application for revision was barred by limitation, as it was made more than 30 days after the RTA's resolution on December 4, 1959. However, the Court held that the order was not complete until the notification was published on June 28, 1960. Therefore, the application for revision filed on April 13, 1960, was not barred by limitation. 3. Whether the State Transport Authority (STA) could entertain a second revision application after rejecting the first one: The appellant contended that the STA could not entertain a second revision application after rejecting the first one, as the RTA's order had merged with the STA's order. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the first revision application was made before the notification, and thus no operative order had come into existence at that time. Therefore, the second revision application was competent. 4. Compliance with the second proviso to Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act: The second proviso to Section 64A requires that the STA shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court found that this requirement was not complied with before the STA made its order on January 6, 1961. Consequently, the Court quashed the STA's order and directed that the application for revision be disposed of in accordance with law after giving public notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard to all concerned parties. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the matter was sent back to the STA for disposal in accordance with the law. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|
