1984 Supreme(Raj) 202

Rajasthan High Court
M.C. Jain, J.
Santosh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
R.T.A. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2720 of 1983
Decided On : November 20, 1984

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—S. 64 A—Power u/s 64 A can be exercised after seeing that a person likely to be affected by RTA—receives public notice and is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (para 14)(b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—S. 64 A, Proviso 3rd- Aggrieved party—Requirement for applicability.(c) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—S. 64A, Proviso 3rd—STAT failed to comply with the provisions—Order of STAT deserves to be set aside. (para 23 & 24)(d) Interpretation of statutes—Repealing law—Effect—Vested right or substantive rights cannot be taken by repeal of an enactment or provision or by an amendment of a provision unless such rights are taken away by some express provision or by necessary implication. (para 35)(e) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—Appeal and revision—Distinction between.(f) Motor Vehicles (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1982—Sec. 3—Retrospective effect of amendment upon pending revisions.(g) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939—S. 47 (3)—Every existing operator can feel aggrieved against the order of STAT and can file application u/s 64 (A). (para 37)

       The right of appeal, it is well settled that it is a vested right and such a right arises to a party, when the lis commences. The same may be true of right of review as in connection with a right of review as well as, it has been laid down that a right to have review of a decision stands on the same footing and in connection with another remedy by way of reference, It can be said that a right to have a reference is also a vested or substantive right, but the same cannot be true in case of remedy, by way of revision. Remedy by way of revision is not available to a party as of right but such a provision only confers a supervisorp jurisdiction on the court or the tribunal as the case may be. An appeal is considered to be continuation of the suit or the proceeding and the matter is writ large before the appellate court or tribunal and the questions of fact and law can be gone into by the appellate court or the tribunal and the evidence can be re-appreciated. In some laws, even so far as the scope of the re-visional power is concerned, it may be akin to appeal but the essential distinction between the remedy of appeal and revision is that in case of appeal, the right is not so in the case of revision The power of revision is the power of the revising authority to call for the record. (para 35)

       If we look to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1982 including Sec. 3, it would be clear that there is nothing in the Act, so as to indicate that the amending provision contained in Sec. 3 of the Amending Act will operate on the pending revision petitions. Apart from Sec. 3 of the Amending Act to show that the provision of Sec. 3 will have a retrospective effect. The legislature was well aware of the pending revisions before the STAT. If the legislature intended that the pending revision petitions must all fail because of the deprivation of there visional power, it would have made a speci6c provision regarding pending revisions, but no such provision has been made relating to the pending revision petitions. Certain words have been inserted by Sec. 3 of the Amendment Act in Sec.64-A., that the insertion shall take effect from the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act and provided in the Amending Sec. 3 that inserted words shall always be deemed to have been inserted. Nor it can be considered to be the necessary intendment of the legislature. From the words "shall be inserted in the absence of any express provision or necessary implication, it can not be taken that the amendment will have effect on the pending revision petition. Although, it is true that from the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act, no revision petition can be entertained by the STAT in cases relating to limiting the stage carriages or opening of the new routs under sub-s. 3 of s. 47. Unlike a right of appeal, review or reference, there is no such right of revision and so, such a right of preferring revision petitions can not be claimed by any person from the date of initiation of any proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act. I, therefore, hold that Sec. 3 of the Amendment Act has no retrospective operation and has only prospective operation and it does not effect the powers of the STAT to decide the pending revision petitions. (para 36)