Bihar S. 64-A is not void or repealed by Central S. 64-A and its scope is limited only to the extent that revisions against non-appealable orders of the Regional Transport Authority have to be preferred to the State Transport Authority.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal, on certificate granted by the High Court of Patna, raises the question whether S. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XXVII of 1950), hereinafter referred to as Bihar S. 64-A, was not applicable to proceedings for grant of permit for inter-State routes. This question, however, was decided by this Court in Shyamlal Kumar Pasari v. Abdul Ghafoor, Civil Appeal No. 306 of 1964, D/- 4-5-1964 (SC ). It was held that it was applicable to cases of stage-carriage permits for inter-State routes.

( 2 ) THE respondent prayed, in view of the observations in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey, (1963) 3 SCR 523: (AIR 1963 SC 64), for permission to challenge the validity of the aforesaid section on the ground that Parliament, by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act No. 100 of 1956), has introduced another S. 64-A in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter referred to as Central S. 64-A and that thereby Bihar S. 64-A must be taken to have been repealed by necessary implication.

( 3 ) THE question arises in this way. The appellant Tansukh Rai Jain, was one of the applicants for the stage-carriage permit for an inter-State route between Bihar and Orissa. The State Transport Authority, Bihar, granted the permit to the United Motor Works, and Co. Ltd. The appellant and respondent No. 1. Nilratan Prasad Shaw, appealed to the appellate authority, the Deputy Minister of Transport, Bihar, against the order of the State Transport authority. The appellate authority reversed the order and granted the permit to Shaw, respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the appellant went in revision to the Bihar Government, in view of Bihar S. 64-A. The Transport Minister set aside the order of the appellate authority and granted the permit to Jain, the appellant. Shaw, respondent No. 1, then filed a writ petition in the High Court and prayed for the quashing of the order of the Transport Minister and for the restoration of the order of the appellate authority granting the permit to him. The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that Bihar S. 64-A did not apply to stage-carriage permits for inter-State routes and that therefore the Bihar Government was incompetent to revise the order of the appellate authority.

( 4 ) IT is urged for the respondent that the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A are repugnant to those of Central S. 64-A and are therefore void in view of Cl. (1) of Art. 254. It is also urged that the Central Act has repealed Bihar S. 64-A by enacting Central S. 64-A in the exercise of the power it had under the proviso to Art. 254 (2 ). If the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A are repugnant to any extent with those of Central S. 64-A, Bihar S. 64-A will be void to the extent of the repugnancy in view of Cl. (1) of Art. 254 of the Constitution. As the Central Act was enacted by Parliament subsequent to the enactment of Bihar S. 64-A, the provisions of the main part of Cl. (2) of Art 254 will not apply to make Bihar S. 64-A good within the State of Bihar, even though it had received the assent of the President, as those provisions applied when the Central Act is enacted earlier than the State law. We have therefore to see whether the provisions of Bihar S. 64-A are repugnant to those of Central S. 64-A.

( 5 ) THE tests for determining whether a certain provision of a State law is repugnant to the provisions of a law made by Parliament are stated thus, in Deep Chand v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1959) Supp (2) SCR 8 at p. 43: (AIR 1959 SC 648 at p. 655):"repugnancy between two statutes may thus be ascertained on the basis of the following three principles: (1) Whether there is direct conflict between the two provisions; (2) Whether Parliament intended to lay down an exhaustive code in respect of the subject matter replacing the Act of the State Legislature; and (3) Whether the law made by Parliament and the law made by the State Legislat