{"id":128985,"date":"1962-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962"},"modified":"2018-08-04T20:33:57","modified_gmt":"2018-08-04T15:03:57","slug":"municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962","title":{"rendered":"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 458, \t\t 1963 SCR (2) 273<\/div>\n
Author: K D Gupta<\/div>\n
Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMUNICIPAL BOARD, PUSHKAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAJASTHAN AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/11\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nBENCH:\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  458\t\t  1963 SCR  (2) 273\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1973 SC2420\t (4)\n E\t    1975 SC2085\t (7)\n RF\t    1987 SC1059\t (17)\n F\t    1987 SC1339\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\nMotor\tVehicles-order\tof  Regional   Transport   Authority\nshifting  bus stand-Revision-Limitation-Motor Vehicles\tAct,\n1939  (4 of 1939), ss.\t64A, 68, 76,  91(2)-Rajasthan  Motor\nVehicles  Rules,  1955, r. 134-Constitution of\tIndia,\tArt.\n142.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  Municipal Board of Pushkar passed a resolution  on\t May\n24,  1948, for the shifting of the bus stand on\t the  sacred\nlake  to  another  site near the  Police  Station  where  it\nresolved  to  construct a passenger shed and  provide  other\nfacilities for\tthe  pilgrims.\t The  Regional\t Transport\nAuthority by a resolution dated December 3\/4, 1959, accepted\nthe  suggestion\t and issued a public  notification  to\tthat\neffect on June 28, 1960.  Long before the notification,\t two\nresidents  of  Pushkar moved the State\tTransport  Authority\nunder  s. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act for revision of\t the\ndecision of the Regional Transport Authority dated  December\n3\/4,  1959, changing the bus stand but that application\t was\nrejected  on  February 18, 1960.  Another petition  for\t the\nrevision of the same orders under the same section was moved\nby  certain  bus  operators on April 13,  1960.\t  The  State\nTransport  Authority  on  January  6,  1961,  allowed\tthat\napplication,  reversed the decision of the Regional  'Trans-\nport  Authority of December 31, 1959, and directed that\t the\nold  bus stand should continue.\t The Municipal\tBoard  moved\nthe  High Court under Art. 226 of the  Constitution  against\nthis  order  of State Transport Authority.  The\t High  Court\nrejected the application.  The Board appealed to this  Court\nby  special  leave.   Its case was that\t the  order  of\t the\nRegional Transport Authority changing the bus stand was made\nunder  s. 76 of the, Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore,\t was\nnot  open  to revision, that the  revision  application\t was\nbarred by limitation and that the first revision application\nhaving\tbeen rejected the second did not lie inasmuch as  on\nthe   rejection\t of  the  first,  the\tRegional   Transport\nAuthority's order ceased to exist having merged in the State\nTransport Authority's order,\n374\nHeld  (per curiam), that it was well settled that  equitable\nconsiderations\thave no place in interpreting  provision  of\nlimitation  and their strict grammatical meaning has  to  be\nadhered to. The expression \"date of the order\" in the  first\nproviso to s. 64A of the Act, therefore, could not mean\t the\ndate of the knowledge of the order.\nPer Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo, Das Gupta and Ayyangar, JJ. The\norder of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the new bus\nstand and discontinuing the old was one made not under s. 76\nof  the Act, which had no application, but under r.  134  of\nthe  Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1955, made in  exercise\nof the powers conferred by s. 68 (2) (r) the Motor  Vehicles\nAct.  The order was, therefore, open to revision tinder\ns.   64A by the State Transport Authority.\nT.B.  Ibrahim v. Regional Transport  Authority,\t Tanjore,<\/a>\n[1953] S.C.R. 290, applied.\nSection 76 had nothing to do with the fixation or alteration\nof  a bus stand.  Although the word bus stand' had not\tbeen\ndefined\t in the Act, it was clear that a bus stand  meant  a\nplace  where bus services commenced or terminated.   Section\n76,  properly  construed, dealt with  the  determination  of\nparking\t places referred to by s. 91(2)(e) of the Act.\t The\nfixation of bus stands was within s. 68(2)(r) of the Act and\nthe power to issue the necessary notification was implied in\nthat clause.\nNagendranath  v.  Suresh, A.I.R. (1 932) P.C.  165,  General\nAccident  Fire\tand  Life,  Assurance  Corporation  Ltd,  v.\nJanmohomed Abdul Rahim, A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 6 and Boota Mal  v.\nUnion of India, [1963] 1 S.C.R. 70, referred to.\nIn  the instant case the effective order fixing the new\t bus\nstand  was made not by the declaration of intention  in\t the\nresolution of December 3\/4, 1959, but by the publication  of\nthe  notification  on  June  28,  1960,\t and  the   impugned\napplication for revision under s. 64A of the Act having been\nmade  before  that  date, no question  of  limitation  could\narise.\nThere  was no scope for the application of the principle  of\nmerger\tin  the\t present  case\tsince  the  State  Transport\nAuthority's  order rejecting the first revision\t application\nhad  been made before the effective and lawful order  fixing\nthe new bus stand was made by the notification.\nCollector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial\t Co.\nLtd.<\/a> [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338 and Madan Gopal Bungta v. Secretary\nto  the\t Government  of Orissa[1962]  Supp.  3\tS.C.R.\t906,\ndistinguished.\n375\nSince  the notice obligatory under the second proviso to  s.\n64A was not admittedly (riven by the State Transport  Autho-\nrity before it passed its order dated January 6, 1961,\tthis\nCourt  should, in the ends of justice, exercise\t its  powers\nunder Art. 142 of the Constitution and send the matter\tback\nto the revisional authority for disposal according to law.\nPer  Sarkar,J.-The  State  Transport  Authority's  order  of\nJanuary 6, 1961 was patently erroneous and should have\tbeen\nset  aside as it was passed under s. 64A on  an\t application\nmade set aside an order of the Regional Transport Authority,\npassed\ton December 3, 4, 1939, after the period of 30\tdays\nprescribed  for\t such  application under  that\tsection\t had\nexpired.\nAssuming that the Regional Transport Authority's order which\ncould be set aside under s. 64A was the one made on June 28,\n1960.  The State Transport Authority's order of .January  6,\n1961,  would  still be patently wrong for it set  aside\t not\nthat  order but the order of December 3\/4, 1959,  which\t the\nState Transport Authority had no power tinder s. 64A to\t set\naside.\nThe State Transport Authority had no power suo motu to treat\nthe  application  to set aside the order  of  December\t3\/4,\n1959,  as an application to set aside the order of June\t 28,\n1960.\tIt had never been moved to do so nor had it in\tfact\nsuo  motu  treated the application as one to set  aside\t the\norder of June 28, 1960, for it expressly set aside only\t the\nRegional Transport Authority's order of December 3\/4, 1959.\nThe  High  Court  was  in  error  in  holding  that  as\t the\nNotification  of  June 28, 1960, contained the\torder  which\ncould be set aside Linder s. 64A, the application under that\nsection which had been made before that date was not  beyond\ntime,  for it omitted to notice that that application  asked\nnothing concerning that order.\nThe application for setting aside the order of December 3\/4,\n1959,  could not by amendment be turned into an\t application\nto  set aside an order of June 28, 1960, after\tthirty\tdays\nfrom the last mentioned day had expired.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 332 of 1962.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust\t31, 1961, of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B.  Civil
\nWrit No. 76 of 1961′
\n376<\/span>
\nM.   C.\t  Setalvad,   Attorney\tGeneral\t  of   India,\tN.C.
\nChatterjee, L. L.Sharma, M. K. Ramamurthi, R.\t  K.   Garg,
\nS. C. Agarwal and D. P. Singh, for the appellant.
\nP.   D. Menon, for respondents Nos.  1 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K. Daphtay, Solicitor General of India,
\nRameshwar   Nath,  S.  N.Andley\t and  P.L.Vohra,   for\t the
\nrespondents Nos. 2-(6).\n<\/p>\n
1962.\t November  21.\t The  judgment\tof   Gajendragadkar,
\nWanchoo,  Das Gupta and Ayyangar, JJ., was delivered by\t Das
\nGupta, J. Sarkar, J., delivered a separate judgment.
\nDAS  GUPTA, J.-At Pushkar in Rajasthan exists a\t tank  which
\nhas  long been considered one of the holiest places  of\t the
\nHindus\tand a well known place of pilgrimage.  By. the\teast
\nof  the lake runs a road approximately north to south.\t The
\nGhats for getting into the lake are situated contiguous west
\nof  this  road.\t  Several  Dharmshalas\tand  at\t least\t one
\nGurudwara have been established by the side of this road not
\nfar from the lake.  A temple of Hanumanji stands east of the
\nroad,  a short distance from the southern edge of the  lake.
\nAnother\t temple close to the road is the temple\t of  Rangji.
\nThis is situated very near the Ghats and to the east of\t the
\nroad.\tThere  is also a temple of  Brahamaji  further\taway
\ntowards\t the north but on this very road a little away\tfrom
\nwhere the road further north cast from the edge of the\tlake
\nmeets,\tanother\t Road Ganera Deedwana  Nagar.\tTowards\t the
\nsouth  of the Dharamashalas the road goes on to Ajmer.\t The
\npolice station of Pushkar is situated at some distance\tfrom
\nthe Pushkar lake.  The police station stands on a road which
\ngoes  on towards Ganera Deedwana Nagar to the north; and  on
\nthe south joins the road
\n377<\/span>
\nto  Ajmer, Thus the road running north to south by the\tside
\nof  the police station and the road running by the  east  of
\nthe  Ghats  of the lake meet a short distance north  of\t the
\npolice station and a greater distance towards the south.  In
\nthis  way  the two roads form a\t somewhat  irregular  figure
\nalmost\tlike  a\t triangle.  The pilgrims use  this  road  in
\ncoming\tto  the\t lake and for this purpose can\tavail  of  a
\nnumber\tof motor transport services.  The dispute  which  is
\nthe  subjectmatter of the present appeal is as\tregards\t the
\nlocation  of  the bus stand at Pushkar, for  these  numerous
\nmotor transport services.\n<\/p>\n
For many years the bus stand was located by the side of\t the
\nroad which runs cast of the lake, a little away to the north
\nof Hanumanji’s temple and very near the, Dharamiashalas.  On
\nMAy  24,  1948,\t the Municipal Board  of  Pushkar  passed  a
\nresolution  that the Bus stand should be shifted to  another
\nsite  by  the side of the road which passes  by\t the  police
\nstation.   By  the  same  resolution  it  was  resolved\t  to
\nconstruct a passenger shed, pivaoo, baths, latrines, urinals
\nand  other facilities for the convenience of the  passengers
\nat  the new bus stand as proposed.  The\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthority  in  its  meeting held on December 3\t&  4,  1959,
\nconsidered  this  proposal and passed a\t resolution  in\t the
\nfollowing words .-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The Bus stand for Pushkar will be the plot of
\n\t      land at the junction of the Hallows Road\twith
\n\t      Ganera  Road  near  the  Police  Station\t and
\n\t      Kalkaji’s\t Temple.  The present bus  stand  on
\n\t      the northern Patri between Hanumangarhi Temple
\n\t      and Bralimannandji’s Baghichi will cease to be
\n\t      a bus stand and will be a bus stop only.\t The
\n\t      buses  will not pass through the\tcity.\tThey
\n\t      will go back from the bus stop to the new\t bus
\n\t      stand.   The Municipal Board will provide\t the
\n\t      necessary facilities.  The buses will shift to
\n\t      378<\/span>
\n\t      the  new bus stand after such  facilities\t are
\n\t      provided.”<\/p>\n
It  was\t not  however until June 28,  1960,  that  a  public
\nnotification was issued in pursuance of the resolution.\t  On
\nthat date a notification was issued notifying the public  of
\nthe  resolution of the Regional Transport  Authority  fixing
\nthe new stand for buses at Pushkar and discontinuing the old
\nstand but directing that it will be used as a bus stop.\t The
\nnotification  further stated that the buses shall  not\tpass
\nthrough the city but will proceed to the new stand back from
\nthe  bus stop and that except the above-mentioned bus  stand
\nno other place shall be used as a bus stand in Pushkar.\t  It
\nwas  after  this  notification\twas  issued,  that  the\t new
\narrangement came into force.\n<\/p>\n
Long  before  this notification was made, two  residents  of
\nPushkar,  Jai Narain and Madan Mohan moved before the  State
\nTransport  Authority  an application for  revision  of’\t the
\ndecision  of the Regional Transport Authority  changing\t the
\nbus stand.  This application purported to be under s. 64A of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act.\t It was heard by the State Transport
\nAuthority  on February 18, 1960, and was rejected  the\tsame
\nday.   On  April 13, 1960, five bus operators of  the  Ajmer
\nPushkar\t route moved a fresh application for revision  under
\ns.  64A\t of  the Motor Vehicles\t Act  against  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority’s decision to change the  stand.\tThis
\napplication  was decided by an order dated January 6,  1961.
\nThe  State  Transport  Authority  rejected  the\t preliminary
\nobjection  raised  by  the  respondent’s  counsel  that\t  no
\nrevision  lay  against the  Regional  Transport\t Authority’s
\norder and also the objection that the matter in dispute\t had
\nalready been heard and decided on February 18, 1960 and\t the
\nState  Transport  Authority had no right to review  its\t own
\norder.\tIt  also rejected the contention that  the  revision
\npetition was barred by limitation.  Coming to the merits  of
\nthe case the State Transport Authority was of
\n379<\/span>
\nopinion\t that the proposed new bus stand was likely to be  a
\nsource\tof inconvenience to women pilgrims and children\t and
\nthat the old bus stand should be retained from the point  of
\nview  of both public utility and convenience.\tAccordingly,
\nthe  State Transport Authority allowed the  application\t for
\nrevision and reversed the decision of the Regional Transport
\nAuthority  and\tdirected  that\tthe  old  bus  stand  should
\ncontinue to be recognised as the official bus stand for\t the
\nPushkar town.\n<\/p>\n
Against\t this  order of the State  Transport  Authority\t the
\nMunicipal Board of Pushkar moved the High Court of Rajasthan
\nunder\tArt.  226  of  the  Constitution  and\tprayed\t for
\nappropriate  writs  or directions, setting aside  the  State
\nTransport  Authority’s order of January 6, 1961.   The\tmain
\ngrounds on which this relief was sought were : (1) that\t the
\norder  of  the Regional Transport Authority  had  been\tmade
\nunder s. 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act and was therefore\t not
\nliable\tto revision; (2) that, in any case, the\t application
\nwas  barred by limitation; and (3) that the State  Transport
\nAuthority   having  already  rejected  one  application\t  in
\nrevision  against the Regional Transport  Authority’s  order
\nchanging   the\tbus  stand  could  not\t entertain   another
\napplication on absolutely the same grounds.  The High  Court
\ncame to the conclusion that there was no substance in any of
\nthese contentions and rejected the application.
\nIt  is\tagainst\t this decision of the High  Court  that\t the
\npresent\t appeal\t has  been filed  by  the  Municipal  Board,
\nPushkar, with special leave.\n<\/p>\n
In  support of the appeal the learned  Attorney-General\t has
\ncontended  that\t the High.  Court’s decision  on  all  these
\nthree  points  was incorrect.  He has reiterated  before  us
\nthat the order of the Regional Transport Authority  changing
\nthe bus stand must be held to have been made under s. 76  of
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act and therefore not liable
\n380<\/span>
\nto  revision, that the application for revision wits  barred
\nby  limitation\tand  thirdly, that in any  case,  the  first
\nrevision application having been rejected, a second revision
\napplication did not lie inasmuch as on the rejection of\t the
\nfirst\trevision   application\t the   Regional\t   Transport
\nAuthority’s  order had ceased to exist having merged in\t the
\nState Transport Authority’s order.\n<\/p>\n
The  first  question that arises for decision  therefore  is
\nwhether\t the Regional Transport Authority’s order  has\tbeen
\nmade  under s. 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act or, as urged  on
\nbehalf\tof the respondents, it was made under s. 68  of\t the
\nAct.  Section 76, it has to be noticed, is in Chapter VI  of
\nthe  Motor  Vehicles  Act which deals with  the\t control  of
\ntraffic.  Section 68 is in Chapter TV which deals with\tthe,
\ncontrol\t of transport vehicles.\t Section 76 gives  power  to
\nthe  State  Government or any authority authorised  in\tthis
\nbehalf by the State Government “to determine places at which
\nmotor  vehicles\t may  stand either  indefinitely  or  for  a
\nspecified  period of time” and also to determine the  places
\nat which public service vehicles may stop for a longer\ttime
\nthan  is  necessary for the taking up and  setting  down  of
\npassengers.  According to the learned Attorney General it is
\nunder  this  power  to\tdetermine a  place  at\twhich  motor
\nvehicles may stand indefinitely or for a specified period of
\ntime  that  the\t location  of a bus  stand  is\tand  can  be
\ndetermined  by the State Government or any  other  authority
\nauthorised by it in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
The rival contention on behalf of the respondent is that the
\ndetermination  of places at which motor vehicles  may  stand
\neither indefinitely or for a specified period of time  means
\nthe  determination of parking place while the  determination
\nof  places at which public service vehicles may stop  for  a
\nlonger time than is necessary for the taking up and setting
\n 381<\/span>
\ndown of passengers, contained in the latter portion of s. 76
\nmeans  the  determination of halting stations.\t Neither  of
\nthese, it is urged, has anything to do with the provision of
\na  bus\tstand.\tA bus stand, it is argued on behalf  of\t the
\nrespondents,  means  the place where a\tbus  service  either
\ncommences  or  terminates.  This according  to\tthe  learned
\nSolicitor-General, who appeared for the respondents, has  to
\nbe  done  under a rule made under s. 68(2) (r) of  the\tAct,
\ngiving power to the Regional Transport Authority to fix\t bus
\nstands.\t  Section 68 empowers the State Government  to\tmake
\nrules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions
\nof Chapter IV.\tThe second subsection provides that  without
\nprejudice  to  the generality of the  power  just  mentioned
\nrules under this section may be made with respect to all  or
\nany  of the matters mentioned in the clause set out  in\t the
\nsub-section.  Of these cl. (r) is in these words:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section 68 (2) (r).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ” prohibiting the picking up and setting\tdown
\n\t      of  passengers by stage or contract  carriages
\n\t      at  specified places or in specified areas  or
\n\t      at  places other than duly notified stands  or
\n\t      halting  places and requiring the driver of  a
\n\t      stage  carriage to stop and remain  stationary
\n\t      for  a reasonable time when so required  by  a
\n\t      passenger desiring to board or alight from the
\n\t      vehicle at a notified halting place.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  order to make an effective rule under this clause  under
\ns.  68(2),  it is said, it is first necessary to  have\tduly
\nnotified  stands.   This clause contemplates, it  is  urged,
\nthat  a\t rule has to first provide for the  notification  of
\ncertain\t stands\t for transport vehicles and,  secondly,\t for
\nprohibiting the picking up and setting down of passengers by
\nstage or contract carriages inter alia at places other\tthan
\nthe  stands  which  have been duly  notified.\tThe  learned
\nSolicitor–General  has\t further  urged\t that  the  question
\nwhether
\n382<\/span>
\nthe  fixation or alteration of bus stands can be made  under
\ns. 76 or s. 68 of the Act is no longer res integra and\tmust
\nbe taken to have been decided in favour of his contention in
\nT. B. Ibrahim v. Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore.<\/a> (1)
\nThere  is,  in\tour opinion, force in this  argument  T.  B.
\nIbrahim,  the appellant in that case, had a bus stand  at  a
\nsite  belonging\t to  himself.  On  February  21,  1950,\t the
\nRegional  Transport  Authority, Tanjore\t declared  that\t bus
\nstand  as  unsuitable and with effect from  April  1,  1950,
\naltered\t the  starting and terminal points by means  of\t two
\nresolutions  purporting to have been passed under s.  76  of
\nthe  Motor  Vehicles  Act.   When  the\tvalidity  of   these
\nresolutions was challenged before the Madras High Court by a
\npetition  under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High  Court
\nheld  that s. 76 did not authorise the respondent  to  close
\nthe previous bus stand and quashed the orders.\tOn  November
\n10, 1950, the Regional Transport Authority of Tanjore, after
\nhearing the appellant Ibrahim and the Municipality passed  a
\nresolution  that  for  good and proper\treasons,  viz.,\t the
\nconvenience of the travelling public the Transport Authority
\nhad resolved to alter the starting places and termini of all
\npublic service vehicles, other than motor cabs, arriving  at
\nand proceeding from Tanjore from the existing buts stand  to
\nanother\t area of the town.  Against this resolution a  fresh
\npetition under Art. 226 was filed in the High Court but\t the
\npetition  was  dismissed.  Against the High  Court’s  order,
\nIbrahim\t appealed to this Court by special leave and  it  is
\nthe  judgment  in  that appeal which has  been\treported  in
\n[1953] S. C. le. 290.\n<\/p>\n
The   impugned\tresolution  was\t passed\t by  the   Transport
\nAuthority under Rule 268 of the Madras Motor Vehicles Rules,
\nas amended.  The amended Rule was in these words :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      268.   In the case of public service  vehicles
\n\t      (other   than   motor  cabs)   the   transport
\n\t      authority
\n\t      (1) [1953] S.C.R. 290.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       383<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      may   after  consultation\t with\tsuch   other
\n\t      authority\t as  it may consider  desirable\t and
\n\t      after  notice to the parties affected, fix  or
\n\t      alter  from time to time for good\t and  proper
\n\t      reasons,\tthe  starting  places  and   termini
\n\t      between which such vehicles shall be permitted
\n\t      to be used within its jurisdiction.  A list of
\n\t      such   places  shall  be\tsupplied   by\tsuch
\n\t      authority to every holder of a permit for such
\n\t      vehicles at the time of grant of or renewal of
\n\t      permits.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      When  such places have been fixed\t every\tsuch
\n\t      vehicle shall start only from such places”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  very  first  ground that was urged in  support  of\t the
\nsecond writ petition in the High Court was that Rule 268, as
\namended,  was  beyond the rulemaking power conferred  by  s.
\n68(2)(r)  of  the Motor Vehicles Act.  This  contention\t was
\nrejected  by  the High Court and was  repeated\tbefore\tthis
\nCourt  and was rejected by this Court also.   After  setting
\nout  the  material portion of s. 68, the Court\tpointed\t out
\nthat  the  purpose  of\tChapter\t IV  was  described  by\t the
\ncompendious expression “control of transport vehicles”,\t and
\nthe  Provincial Government was invested with plenary  powers
\nto  make  rules\t for  carrying out  that  purpose  and\tthen
\nobserved :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Keeping\tin view the purpose  underlying\t the
\n\t      Chapter  we are not prepared to hold that\t the
\n\t      fixing or alteration of bus-stands is  foreign
\n\t      to that purpose.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dealing with the contention that s. 68(2)(r) does not confer
\nthe power upon the transport authority to direct the  fixing
\nor  the alteration of a bus stand and therefore Rule 268  of
\nthe  rules  framed under that section was ultra\t vires,\t the
\nCourt observed thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “We  are\tnot  prepared  to  accede  to\tthis
\n\t      contention.  Sub-section 2(r) clearly  contem-
\n\t      plates   three   definite\t  situations.\t  It
\n\t      prohibits the
\n\t      384<\/span>
\n\t      picking  up or setting down of passengers\t (i)
\n\t      at specified places, (ii) in specified  areas,
\n\t      and  (iii) at places other than duly  notified
\n\t      stands or halting places.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “If the power to make rules in regard to these
\n\t      matters  is given to the Government,  then  it
\n\t      follows  that a specified place may be  prohi-
\n\t      bited from being used for picking Upon setting
\n\t      down passengers.\tThis will inevitably  result
\n\t      in the closing of that specified place for the
\n\t      purpose  of  picking  up or  setting  down  of
\n\t      passengers.  Similarly a specified area may be
\n\t      excluded for the same purpose.  The expression
\n\t      “duty  notified stands” is not defined in\t th`
\n\t      Act,  but it is reasonable to presume  that  a
\n\t      duly  notified  stand  must be  one  which  is
\n\t      notified\tby  the Transport Authority  and  by
\n\t      none  other.   There  is no  warrant  for\t the
\n\t      presumption  that it must be notified  by\t the
\n\t      Municipality.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Court then discussed certain provisions of\t the  Madras
\nDistrict  Municipalities Act and said that these  provisions
\ndid  not  affect  the power of the  Transport  Authority  to
\nlocate\ttraffic control and that if Rule 268 was within\t the
\nrule-making  authority,\t it followed that it could  riot  be
\nchallenged as being void because it was riot consistent with
\nsome  general  law.  The discussion on this point  was\tcon-
\ncluded in these words :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 68, sub-section (2)(r) involves\tboth
\n\t      a\t general prohibition that the ,\t stand\twill
\n\t      cease  to\t exist\tas  well  as  a\t  particular
\n\t      prohibition,  namely,  that  passengers  shall
\n\t      riot  be picked up or set down at a  specified
\n\t      point.   The  order passed  by  the  Transport
\n\t      Authority properly construed falls within\t the
\n\t      ambit  of section 68 sub-section\t2(r).\tRule
\n\t      268 under which the order impeached was passed
\n\t      is a rule framed
\n\t      385<\/span>
\n\t      under  the plenary rule-making power  referred
\n\t      to  in section 68, sub-section (1).   Sub-sec-
\n\t      tion  (2)\t (za) says that a rule may  be\tmade
\n\t      with  respect to any other matter which is  to
\n\t      be  or  may  be prescribed.   This  shows\t the
\n\t      existence\t of  residuary power vested  in\t the
\n\t      rule-making  authority.  It follows  therefore
\n\t      that  Rule  268  is within the  scope  of\t the
\n\t      powers conferred under section 68 of the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We  have deliberately made these extensive  quotations\tfrom
\nthe  previous  judgment of this Court because  they  clearly
\nshow, as nothing else can, that the Court had to consider in
\nthat  case the question whether s.68(2) (r) did confer\tupon
\nthe  Transport\tAuthority  the power  to  direct  fixing  or
\nalteration  of a bus stand and answered the question in\t the
\naffirmative.   Ibrahim’s  case is thus a  clear\t and  direct
\nauthority for the proposition that under s. 68(2)(r) of\t the
\nMotor  Vehicles Act the State Government has power to  frame
\nrules empowering the Regional Transport Authority to fix  or
\nalter  bus-stands.   The  notification\tof  June  28,  1960,
\nmentions  Rule\t134 of the Rajasthan Motor  Vehicles  Rules,
\n1955,  as  the source of the power under which the  new\t bus
\nstand  was fixed, the old bus stand was discontinued and  it
\nwas  ordered  that no other place except the new  bus  stand
\nshould\tbe  used as a bus stand at  Pushkar.   The  material
\nportion of Rule 134 reads thus:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A    Regional\tTransport    Authority\t  by
\n\t      notification  in the Rajasthan Gazette, or  by
\n\t      the  erection  of\t traffic  signs\t which\t are
\n\t      permitted for-the purpose under subsection (1)
\n\t      of  section 75 of the Act.. or both,  may,  in
\n\t      respect  of the taking up or setting  down  of
\n\t      passengers or both, by public service vehicles
\n\t      or  by any specified class of  public  service
\n\t      vehicles………………….\n<\/p>\n
\t      386<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      within  the  limits of  any  municipality,  or
\n\t      within  such other limits as may be  specified
\n\t      in the notification, certain specified  stands
\n\t      or halting places only shall be so used.”\n<\/p>\n
\t      This  rule  clearly empowers the\tfixation  or
\n\t      alteration of bus stands.\n<\/p>\n
In  framing  the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles  Rules,  1951,  of
\nwhich Rule 134 form part the Rajasthan Government  mentioned
\nthe numerous sections which give the Government the power to
\nframe  rules as. the “authority under which the\t rules\twere
\nbeing  made, viz., ss. 21, 41, 65, 68, 70, 71, (2), 73,\t 74,
\n75,  77,  80, 86, (2), 88, 90 and 91 of the  Motor  Vehicles
\nAct,  1939.  In view of this Court’s decision  in  Ibrahim’s
\nCase (1) it will be proper to hold that Rule 13,4 ,was\tmade
\nin  exercise  of the powers under s. 68.   Accordingly,\t the
\norder of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the new bus
\nstand and discontinuing the old should be held to have\tbeen
\nmade  under  a\trule made under s. 68  and  thus  liable  to
\nrevision under s. 64 A.\n<\/p>\n
The  learned  Attorney-General\tstressed the  fact  that  in
\nlbrahim’s case this Court did not in so many words say\tthat
\nsuch an order. fixing or altering a bus stand cannot be made
\nunder  s. 76 of the Act and contended that that case  is  no
\nauthority  for holding that the order was not made under  s.\n<\/p>\n
76.  Assuming for the sake of argument that that was so\t and
\nthat the order could also be made under s. 76 that would not
\naffect\tor weaken the authority of Ibrahim’s Case in so\t far
\nas it decided that a rule empowering the Transport Authority
\nto  fix or alter bus stands can be made under s. 68 (2)\t (r)
\nof  the Act.  In that position there will be no escape\tfrom
\nthe  conclusion\t that the  Regional  Transport\tAuthority’s
\norder in the present case would be liable to revision  under
\ns 64 A.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1953] S.C.R, 290.\n<\/p>\n
387<\/span><\/p>\n
It  appears clear to us however that Ibrahim’s case is\talso
\nauthority  for\tthe  proposition that  an  order  fixing  or
\naltering  a bus stand cannot be made under s. 76.  From\t the
\nsummary\t of ‘what was discussed and decided in that case  as
\nhas been given above, it appears that the Division Bench  of
\nthe  Madras  High Court gave a categorical decision  in\t the
\nearlier\t writ  petition\t that s. 76 did\t not  authorise\t the
\nTransport  Authority to close the bus stand.  It appears  to
\nus clear that this view was approved by this Court.  Indeed,
\nthe reasoning which this Court adopted for deciding that  s.
\n68  (2)\t (r)  of  the  Act  contemplates  the  fixation\t  or
\nalteration of a bus stand would become considerably weakened
\nand would not have been accepted by this Court if it thought
\nthat s. 76 itself authorised the Transport Authority to\t fix
\nor close a bus stand.\n<\/p>\n
We may make it clear that even if this binding authority  in
\nlbrahim’s  Case\t had not been present we would have  had  no
\nhesitation  in holding that the fixation or alteration of  a
\nbus stand is made under a rule made under s. 68 of the Motor
\nVehicles  Act  and  cannot  be made under  s.  76.   In\t our
\nopinion,  Chapter  VI  which  deals  with  the\tquestion  of
\n“‘Control of traffic” in general has nothing to do with\t the
\nfixation  or  alteration of bus stands.\t Section 76  has  no
\ndoubt  used the words “‘places at which motor  vehicles\t may
\nstand”\tand the learned Attorney–General tried to  persuade
\nus  that this includes the fixation of what is known as\t bus
\nstands.\t While the word “bus stand” has not been defined  in
\nthe  Act, we have no hesitation in accepting the  contention
\nof the respondents that a bus stand means a place where\t bus
\nservices  commence or terminate.  It is the place where\t the
\nbuses  stand for commencing its transport service  or  where
\nthey   stand  after  terminating  their\t service,  that\t  is
\npopularly  known as a bus-stand.  We do not think the  words
\n“places\t at  which  the\t motor\tvehicles  may  stand  either
\nindefinitely
\n388<\/span>
\nor  for\t a  specified  period of  time”\t can  be  reasonably
\ninterpreted to include a bus stand in the above sense.\tWhen
\nit  is remembered that Chapter VI in which s. 76 occurs,  is
\nintended  to  deal with the control of ,traffic\t it  becomes
\nclear  that the determination of places at which  the  Motor
\nVehicles  may stand either indefinitely or for\ta  specified
\nperiod\tof time means the “determination of parking  places”
\nwhile  the determination of places at which public  vehicles
\nmay stop for a longer time than is necessary for the  taking
\nup  and setting down of passengers means  “halting  stations
\nfor  public  service vehicles”.\t It is well  worth  noticing
\nthat while the determination of such places for stoppage, in
\nthe  latter  portion  of the section can be  in\t respect  of
\npublic service vehicles only the determination of places  of
\nstanding  in the first part of the section is in respect  of
\nmotor vehicles in general.\n<\/p>\n
All things considered, it appears to us clear that s. 76 has
\nnothing to do with the provision for bus stands.  Section 91
\n(2)  (e) which empowers the State Government to\t make  rules
\nfor  “the maintenance and management of parking\t places\t and
\nstands” does not refer, in our opinion, to bus stands but to
\n“‘stands”  for\tmotor vehicles which are in  the  nature  of
\nparking places determined under s. 76.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tequally clear to us that the “control  of  transport
\nvehicles”  with\t which Chapter IV purports  to\tdeal  should
\nreasonably be expected to contain provisions for fixation of
\nplaces\twhere  the  transport vehicles\tmay  commence  their
\njourney or terminate their journey, that is, the fixation of
\nbus  stands.   When therefore we find in s. 68\t(2),(r)\t the
\nspecific  clause  about\t “prohibiting  the  picking  up\t and
\nsetting down of passengers………… at places other\tthan
\nduly  notified stands,” it is reasonable to think  that\t the
\nword  “stand”  was used there to mean “bus  stands”  in\t the
\nsense of places where services
\n 389<\/span>
\nterminate  or  commence.   The\tscheme\tof  the\t sub-section
\nclearly shows that bus stands have first to be notified\t and
\nregulatory orders can, and have to be issued thereafter.  In
\nthe  nature  of\t things, the power to  issue  the  necessary
\nnotification is implied in the provision.
\nThe  conclusion that necessarily follows from this  is\tthat
\nthe  State  Government has been given authority\t under\tthis
\nclause to make rules for the fixation of bus-stands by\tduly
\nnotifying  the same.  Rule 134 in so far as it empowers\t the
\nRegional  Transport Authority to fix or alter bus stands  is
\nthus  a rule made under the rule-making authority  under  s.\n<\/p>\n
68.  Even  apart from the authority of\tlbrahim’s  Case\t (1)
\ntherefore  we are of opinion that the order of the  Regional
\nTransport   Authority  was  made  in  pursuance\t of   powers
\nconferred  on it by a rule made under s. 68 (2) (r)  of\t the
\nMotor Vehicles Act and therefore liable to revision under s.
\n64A.\n<\/p>\n
This brings us to the question of limitation.  Section 64  A
\nprovides that State Transport Authority shall not  entertain
\nany  application from a person aggrieved by an order of\t the
\nRegional Transport Authority unless the application is\tmade
\nwithin 30 days from the date of the order.  According to the
\nappellant,  the\t impugned  order was made  by  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority on December 4, 1959,  and\tconsequently
\nthe  application  for revision made by\tthe  respondents  on
\nApril  13, 1960, was barred.  It was suggested that in\tfact
\nthe respondents who moved the revision application on  April
\n13,  1960,  were  aware of the order made  by  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority on December 4, 1959; but assuming\tthat
\nthey  had no such knowledge, the question of  knowledge,  it
\nwas urged, was totally irrelevant.  The section has provided
\nthat no application shall bib entertained unless it is\tmade
\nwithin 30 days from the date of
\n(1)  [1953] S.C.R. 290.\n<\/p>\n
 390<\/span><\/p>\n
the  order and the courts cannot read it as within  30\tdays
\nfrom  the  date\t of the knowledge of  the  order.   In\tthis
\nconnection  the\t learned  Attorney-General  has\t drawn\t our
\nattention   to\tthe  decisions\tof  the\t Privy\tCouncil\t  in
\nNagendranath v. Suresh, (1) and General Accident Fire & Life
\nAssurance Corporation Limited v. Jarmohomnad Abdul Rahim (2)
\nwhere  it  has\tbeen emphasised\t that  in  interpreting\t the
\nprovisions of limitation, “‘equitable considerations are out
\nof place, and the strict grammatical meaning of the words is
\nthe  only  safe\t guide.” There can be  no  doubt  that\tthis
\nprinciple  has always been acted upon by the  courts.\tThis
\nprinciple  has\trecently been re-affirmed by this  Court  in
\nBoota Mal.v. The Union of India (3).\n<\/p>\n
We  agree  therefore  that the words “-date  of\t the  order”
\nshould\tnot be read “”as from the date of knowledge  of\t the
\norder”\tin the absence of clear indication to  that  effect.
\nIn  this connection the learned Attorney-General  has  drawn
\nour attention to several sections of the Motor Vehicles\t Act
\nto show that where the legislature in prescribing the period
\nof limitation intended that time should run from some  other
\ndate than the date when the order was made clear  indication
\nof such intention was given.  Thus s. 13 in providing for an
\nappeal\tfrom  an order made refusing or revoking  a  driving
\nlicence says that an aggrieved person may appeal “within  30
\ndays of the service on him of the order”.  Section 15  which
\nprovides  for  an  appeal from an  order  of  the  licencing
\nauthority  disqualifying  a person from\t holding  a  driving
\nlicence\t lays  down  that an  aggrieved\t person\t may  appeal
\n“‘within  30 days of the receipt of the order”.\t Section  16
\nwhich  provides for an appeal against certain orders of\t the
\nRegional Transport Authority says that the aggrieved  person
\nmay  appeal “within 30 days of the receipt of intimation  of
\nsuch order”.  Section 35 which is another section  providing
\nfor appeal says that the
\n(1) A.I.R. (1932) P.C. 165\t (2) A.I.R. (1941) P. C. 6,
\n(3)  [1963] 1 S.C.R. 70.\n<\/p>\n
391<\/span><\/p>\n
appeal may be made “within 30 days of the date of receipt of
\nnotice of the order”.\n<\/p>\n
There  is considerable force therefore in the argument\tthat
\nif  the\t legislature had intended that\tan  application\t for
\nrevision  under s. 64A may be made within 30 days  from\t the
\ndate  of  intimation  or  knowledge  of\t the  order  to\t the
\naggrieved  person it would have said so; and in the  absence
\nof  any\t such  thing the court is bound\t to  hold  that\t the
\napplication  will be barred unless made within 30 days\tfrom
\nthe  date  of the order by which. the person  is  aggrieved.
\nThis  still leaves open for investigation the problem as  to
\nwhat. is the date of the order.\t According to the  appellant
\nthe  date when the Regional Transport Authority\t passed\t the
\nresolution  is\tthe date of the order.\tAgainst this  it  is
\nurged  on  behalf of the bus operators that it is  the\tdate
\nwhen  that  resolution\twas  brought  into  effect  by\t the
\npublication  of the notification which should be  considered
\nto  be\tthe  date  of  the  order.   In\t our  opinion,\t the
\nrespondents’  contention should be accepted.  For, it  is  a
\nfallacy\t to think that the date when the Regional  Transport
\nAuthority  passed the resolution was the date on  which\t the
\nfixation  of the new-bus-stand or the discontinuance of\t the
\nold bus stand was ordered.  It has to be remembered in\tthis
\nconnection  that  Rule\t134  itself  contemplates  that\t the
\nfixation  or  alteration of bus stands would be\t made  by  a
\nnotification.\tIt  is\tonly on\t such  notification  that  a
\nnotified  bus  stand comes into existence.  So long  as\t the
\nnotification  is  not  made there is  in  law  no  effective
\nfixation of a new bus stand or discontinuance of the old bus
\nstand.\n<\/p>\n
The  matter may be considered from another aspect.   Section
\n64A  provides  for an application for revision by  a  person
\naggrieved by an order.\tIt is the making of the order  which
\ngives  rise  to\t the  grievance.  In this  case\t it  is\t the
\nfixation of the new bus stand and the discontinuance of\t the
\nold bus stand by which the bus operators claim to have\tbeen
\naggrieved,
\n392<\/span>
\nIt is easy to see that there is no real cause for  grievance
\ntill  such fixation and discontinuance of ‘bus\tstands\thave
\nbeen  made by a notified order.\t In other words,  the  order
\nhas   not  been\t “made”\t till  the  notification  has\tbeen
\npublished.   Before that it is only an intention to make  an
\norder  that  has  been\texpressed.   That  this\t distinction
\nbetween the making of an order fixing or discontinuing a bus
\nstand  and the expression of an intention to make  such.  an
\norder  was  present in the mind of  the\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthority is abundantly clear from the language used by\t it.
\nThe  resolution\t that Was Passed on December  4,  1959-which
\naccording  to  the  appellant  was the\tdate  on  which\t the
\nimpugned order was made-says :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The bus stand for Pushkar will be the plot of
\n\t      land at the junction of the Hallows Road\twith
\n\t\t\t    Ganera  Road  near\tthe  Police  Station   and
\n;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Kalkaji’s\t Temple.  The present bus’ stand  on
\n\t      the northern Patri between Hanumangarhi Temple
\n\t      and Brahamanandji’s Baghichi will cease to  be
\n\t      a bus stand and will be a bus stop, only.\t The
\n\t      buses  will not pass through the city;.\tThey
\n\t      will  go\tback from the bus stop\tto  the\t new
\n\t      stand.  The Municipal Board will provide\tthe,
\n\t      necessary facilities.  The buses will shift to
\n\t      the  new\tstand  after  such  facilities\t are
\n\t      provided.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Transport Authority did not follow this up on that\tdate
\nby  a formal order.  It is reasonable therefore to  consider
\nthe  passing of the, resolution as the preliminary stage  of
\nthe making of the order and the notification by which it was
\npublished as the final making of the order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Our conclusion therefore is that-the order; fixing a new bus
\nstand at Pushkar and discontinuing the old bus stand was  in
\neffect made not on December 4. 1959, but on June 28,  1960,
\nwhen. the notification about the fixation of a new bus stand
\nwas published,
\n393<\/span>
\nIt is this order, made on June 28, 1960, that was liable  to
\nrevision and as the application for revision was made before
\nthat  date–in anticipation of the notification the plea  of
\nlimitation  raised  on behalf of the appellant\twas  rightly
\nrejected by the Regional Transport Authority.
\nThere  remains for consideration the last contention  raised
\non  behalf  of\tthe appellant that  inasmuch  as  the  State
\nTransport Authority rejected by its order dated February 18,
\n1960,  the first application, for revision of  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority’s\torder fixing. or  altering  the\t bus
\nstand,\tthe Regional Transport Authority’s order  merged  in
\nthe  order  of\tthe State Transport  Authority,\t the  second
\napplication for revision was incompetent.
\nIn  Collector  of  Customs’  Calcutta  v.  The,\t East  India
\nCommercial Co. Ltd., Calcutta,<\/a> (1)this Court held that where
\nonce  an order of original authority is taken in  appeal  to
\nthe  appellate\tauthority  it is the  order  of\t the  latter
\nauthority  which is the operative order after the appeal  is
\ndisposed  of-whether  the appellate authority  reverses\t the
\norder  under  appeal  or  modifies  that  order\t or   merely
\ndismisses the appeal and thus confirms the order without any
\nmodification.\tIn  Madan Gopal Rungta v. Secretary<\/a>  to\t the
\nGovt.  of  (2) Orissa this Court applied this  principle  of
\nmerger to orders passed by way of review and an order of the
\nCentral\t Government in effect rejecting the  application  of
\nthe  appellant\tfor the grant of a mining lease to  him\t and
\nconfirming the rejection of the application of the appellant
\nby  the\t Orissa\t Government was held  not  amenable  to\t the
\njurisdiction  of the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226  of
\nthe  Constitution  in  view of the  fact  that\tthe  Central
\nGovernment was not located within the territories subject to
\nthe jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court on the ground that
\nthe Central Government’s order rejecting the review petition
\nand in effect rejecting the application of the appellant for
\ngrant of a mining lease was the
\n(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 338.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 906,
\n394<\/span>
\noperative  order.   It has been urged. on the  authority  of
\nthese  cases that the principle of merger should be  applied
\nto  the cases of revision also where the revising  authority
\nreverses  the order or modifies it or merely  dismisses\t the
\nrevision application thereby confirming the order.
\nIn our opinion, there is no scope for the application of the
\nprinciple of merger to the facts of the present case.  As we
\nhave pointed out above the order fixing a new bus stand\t and
\ndiscontinuing  the old bus stand was in effect, and in\tlaw,
\nmade  not  on December 4, 1959, but on June 28,\t 1960.\t The
\nposition  therefore  was that neither on the date  when\t the
\nfirst  application for revision was made nor when the  State
\nTransport  Authority disposed of that application,  had\t any
\norder of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the new bus
\nstand  and  discontinuing  the\told  bus  stand,  come\tinto
\nexistence.\n<\/p>\n
The question of merger could only arise if the revision\t was
\nof an order that had come into existence.  If even though an
\napplication  for revision was made before  the\tnotification
\nbut  the  State\t Transport  Authority  had  considered\t and
\ndisposed  of the matter after the notification was  made  it
\nwould  be  possible and indeed reasonable to  say  that\t the
\napplication for revision should be deemed, at the time\twhen
\nthe State Transport Authority, dealt with the matter, to  be
\none  for this completed order and the order of the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority  merged  in  the  revising\t authority’s
\norder.\tAs, however, the revising authority’s order was also
\nmade before the notification had been published there was no
\noperative  order  even by the  State  Transport\t Authority’s
\norder  made on February 18, 1960.  The contention. that\t the
\nsecond revision was incompetent, must therefore be rejected.
\nTwo points which emerged during arguments at the Bar however
\nrequire consideration.\tThe first
\n395<\/span>
\nis  that the application which the respondents\tbusoperators
\nmade  on  April 13, 1960, was also not for a revision  of  a
\ncomplete  order.   As  it  was\tonly  this  application\t for
\nrevision  which has been dealt with by the  State  Transport
\nAuthority  by  its order of January 6,\t1961,  the  question
\narises whether that fact itself makes the order of the State
\nTransport  Authority  bad and entitles the  appellant  to  a
\ndirection  quashing this order.\t It has to be  noticed\tthat
\nthe  position  in law that there was no\t complete  order  of
\nfixation  of a new bus stand and alteration of the  old\t bus
\nstand at Pushkar till the notification was made on June\t 28,
\n1960, was not present in the minds of either the  applicants
\nor the appellant, Municipal, Board, which appeared to oppose
\nthe  application or even the State Transport Authority.\t  It
\nwas  not the appellant’s case in the writ petition that\t the
\nState Transport Authority’s order of January 6, 1961, should
\nbe  quashed, because it purported to revise an\torder  which
\nhad  no existence in the eye of law.  On a consideration  of
\nall  the circumstances, we do not think that  the  appellant
\ncan  now  claim an order for quashing  the  State  Transport
\nAuthority’s  decision  on this ground.\tIn our\topinion,  it
\nwould  be proper, in the special circumstances of the  case,
\nto   hold   that  the  State  Transport\t  Authority   could,
\nimmediately  after  June  28,  1960,  when  the\t order\t was
\ncompleted  by  the notification treat  the  application\t for
\nrevision  made on April 13, 1960, pending before it  on\t the
\ndate of the notification, as an application for revision  of
\nthe  order  as completed by the notification, and  that,  in
\nsubstance,  the\t order\tof January 6,  1961,  was  an  order
\nrevising-not   the  decision  of  the\tRegional   Transport
\nAuthority’s  order  of December 4, 1959,  but  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority’s\torder  fixing a\t new  bus  stand  at
\nPushkar, as completed by the notification of June 28, 1960.
\nThe  other point which was brought to our notice during\t the
\narguments at the Bar is that
\n396<\/span>
\nthe order of the State Transport Authority dated January  6,
\n1961, was made without compliance with the second proviso to
\ns. 64 A. That proviso is in these words:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Provided\t further  that the  State  Transport
\n\t      Authority\t shall not pass an order under\tthis
\n\t      section  prejudicial  to\tany  person  without
\n\t      giving  him a reasonable opportunity of  being
\n\t      heard.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This  appears to us to make it necessary that before  making
\nany  revisional\t order\tunder s.  64A  the  State  Transport
\nAuthority has to see that a person likely to be affected  by
\nthat  revisional order receives notice of the matter and  is
\ngiven a reasonable opportunity to be heard.  The requirement
\nof this proviso was admittedly not complied with before\t the
\nState Transport Authority made the order on January 6, 1961,
\nin the present case.  If the High Court’s attention had been
\ndrawn  to  this failure on the part of the  State  Transport
\nAuthority to comply with this statutory requirement, we have
\nno  doubt that the High Court would have felt  compelled  to
\nquash the revisional order made.\n<\/p>\n
Now,  that we find that this statutory requirement  was\t not
\ncomplied  with before the revisional order was made,  we  do
\nnot think it will be proper for us to ignore this  infirmity
\nin the order.  It is true that the learned  Attorney-General
\ncontended  that as soon as the Court accepts the  plea\tthat
\nthe  revisional order challenged by the appellant  by  their
\nwrit  petition is invalid for the reason that the  appellate
\nauthority did not comply with the provisions of S. 64A,\t the
\nwrit petition ought to be allowed and no opportunity can  or
\nshould\tbe  given to the said authority\t to  reconsider\t the
\nmatter.\t  We  are not impressed by this\t argument.   We\t are
\nsatisfied  that in the circumstances of this case, we  ought
\nto  exercise our powers under Art. 142 of  the\tConstitution
\nand
\n397<\/span>
\nsend the matter back to the revisional authority to be dealt
\nwith in accordance with law, because there is no doubt\tthat
\nby  adopting this course full justice will be  done  between
\nthe parties..\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly,  we  allow\t the  appeal  and  quash  the  State
\nTransport  Authority’s\torder made on January 6,  1961,\t and
\ndirect\tthat  the application for revision of  the  Regional
\nTransport  Authority’s order as notified on June, 28,  1961,
\nbe   disposed  of  by  the  State  Transport  Authority\t  in
\naccordance with law after giving public notice of the matter
\nand  thereafter giving every person concerned in the  matter
\nwho  wishes  to be heard a reasonable opportunity  of  being
\nheard.\tIn the circumstances of the case, we order that\t the
\nparties will bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
SARKAR,J–I  have  come to the conclusion that\tthis  appeal
\nshould be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant is the Municipal Board of Pushkar in the State
\nof Rajasthan.  It passed a resolution sometime in 1958\tthat
\nthe  bus  stand near the Pushkar lake should be\t shifted  to
\nwhat it considered a more suitable place.  Now the power  to
\nfix   bus  stands  was\tgiven  to  the\tRegional   Transport
\nAuthorities  by r. 134 of the Rules framed by the  Rajasthan
\nGovernment  under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.\t  That\trule
\nprovides as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Rule  134.  “”A Regional Transport  Authority,
\n\t      by notifications in the Rajasthan Gazette,  or
\n\t      by  the  erection of traffic signs  which\t are
\n\t      permitted\t for the purpose under\tsub  section
\n\t      (1) of section 75 of the Act, or both, may, in
\n\t      respect  of the taking up or setting  down  of
\n\t      passengers or both, by public service vehicles
\n\t      or  by any specified class of  public  service
\n\t      vehicles\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   conditionally  or  unconditionally\tpro-
\n\t      hibit the use of any specified place or of
\n\t      398<\/span>
\n\t      any  place of a specified nature or class,  or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  require  that within the limits  of\t any
\n\t      municipality  or within such other  limits  as
\n\t      may be specified in the notification,  certain
\n\t      specified stands or halting places only  shall
\n\t      be so used:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant\tMunicipality moved  the\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthority,  Jaipur,  for making an order  shifting  the\t bus
\nstand to the place suggested by it.  On December 3\/4,  1959,
\nthe   Regional\tTransport  Authority  passed  a\t  resolution
\naccepting   the\t  appellant  Municipality’s   proposal\t and
\nproviding  that the bus stand would be shifted to the  place
\nsuggested  by  the appellant Municipality and  the  old\t bus
\nstand would cease to be used as such but would only be\tused
\nas  a  bus stop.  The resolution further provided  that\t the
\nappellant Municipality would provide certain facilities\t and
\nthe  new  bus  stand  would  start  functioning\t after\t the
\nfacilities had been provided.\n<\/p>\n
Now s. 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      S.    64A.   “The\t State\tTransport  Authority
\n\t      may,  either  on\tits  own  motion  or  on  an
\n\t      application made to it, call for the record of
\n\t      any case in which an order has been made by  a
\n\t      Regional\tTransport Authority and in which  no
\n\t      appeal  lies, and if it appears to  the  State
\n\t      Transport Authority that the order made by the
\n\t      Regional\tTransport Authority is improper\t or,
\n\t      illegal,\tthe  State Transport  Authority\t may
\n\t      pass such order in relation to the case as  it
\n\t      deems fit :\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\tthat the State\tTransport  Authority
\n\t      shall not entertain any application from a
\n\t       399<\/span>
\n\t       person  aggrieved by an order of\t a  Regional
\n\t      Transport Authority, unless the application is
\n\t      made  within thirty days from the date of\t the
\n\t      order
\nCertain bus operators of Pushkar who are respondents in this
\nappeal and whom I will refer to as the respondents,  applied
\nto the State Transport Authority on April 13, 1960, under s.
\n64A  to\t quash\tthe resolution\tof  the\t Regional  Transport
\nAuthority of December 3\/4, 1959.  While this application was
\npending\t disposal  by  the State  Transport  Authority,\t the
\nRegional  Transport  Authority issued a\t notification  dated
\nJune 28, 1960, finally declaring and notifying to the public
\nthe fixing of the new bus stand.   This\t  notification\t was
\npublished in the RajasthanGazette of July 14, 1960.   It
\nappears that there wasthis    delay   in   issuing    the
\nnotification of the Regional  Transport\t\t Authority’s
\nnotification of December 3\/4, 1959, because in the  meantime
\ntwo  other persons had moved the State\tTransport  Authority
\nunder  s. 64A to quash that resolution and also because\t the
\nfacilities   which  the\t appellant  Municipality  had\tbeed
\ndirected  to  provide had not till then been  arranged\tfor.
\nThat  earlier  petition under s. 64A was  dismissed  by\t the
\nState\tTransport  Authority  on  February  18,\t 1960,\t and
\nthereafter the facilities required had been provided by\t the
\nappellant  Municipality.   It  is after all  this  that\t the
\nnotification of June 28, 1960, had been issued.\t The respon-
\ndent’s\tpetition  under\t s. 64A was  allowed  by  the  State
\nTransport Authority by an order made on January 6, 1961.  By
\nthat order the State Transport Authority directed that\t“the
\ndecision passed by the R. T. A. dated 3\/4 December 1959\t and
\nupheld by the STA on 18. 2. 1960 be set aside and  cancelled
\nand  the  old Bus stand shall continue to be  recognised  as
\nOfficial Bus stand for the Pushkar Town.”\n<\/p>\n
400<\/span><\/p>\n
On  February  10, 1961, the appellant Municipality  filed  a
\npetition  under\t Art. 226 of the Constitution  in  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of  Rajasthan for a writ quashing the  order  of\t the
\nState Transport Authority of January 6, 1961.  This petition
\nwas  dismissed\tby the High Court.  The\t appellant  has\t now
\nappealed  to  this Court against the decision  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
There  were various points taken in support of this  appeal,
\nbut  I think that one of them must succeed and I propose  in
\nthis  judgment to discuss that point only.  It was  said  on
\nbehalf of the appellant Municipality that there was an error
\napparent on the face of the record because the\trespondents’
\npetition to the State Transport Authority under s.. 64A\t had
\nbeen filed after the period of thirty days limited for\tthat
\npurpose by the proviso to that section.\t It was contended on
\nbehalf of the respondents that this was not so for under  s.
\n64  A the period of thirty days had to be counted  not\tfrom
\nthe  date  of  the  order-in this  case\t the  resolution  of
\nDecember  3\/4, 1959-but from the date when  the\t respondents
\nhad the knowledge. of that order.  It was contended that  if
\nthe period was counted from such date, then the petition was
\nwithin time.\n<\/p>\n
I do not think that under s. 64 A the period of thirty\tdays
\nhas  to be counted from the date that the party\t wishing  to
\nmove  under  that  section comes to have  knowledge  of\t the
\n‘order\tsought\tto  be set aside.  My  learned\tbrother\t Das
\nGupta,\tJ.,  has  in  the judgment  just  delivered  by\t him
\ndiscussed this question and with his view on that point I am
\nin  entire agreement.  It is unnecessary for me\t to  discuss
\nthis question further.\tTherefore, it would appear that\t the
\nrespondents’ petition under s. 64A to set aside the order of
\nDecember  3\/4,\t1959, was out of time and should  have\tbeen
\ndismissed.  The State Transport Authority’s decision that it
\nwas not out of time because the period of thirty days has to
\nbe counted from the date of the knowledge of the order was
\n 401<\/span>
\npatently  erroneous and therefore the appellant should\thave
\nbeen  held  entitled  to  the writ  by\tthe  High  Court  of
\nRajasthan.\n<\/p>\n
But  it\t was  then said that the date of the  order  of\t the
\nRegional Transport Authority was not december 3\/4, 1959, but
\nJune  28, 1960.’ This was presumably put on the ground\tthat
\nthe  order  could and r. 134, earlier set out,\tbe  made  by
\nnotification  and in this case the notification was made  on
\nJune  28, 1960.\t Under that rule a bus stand could be  fixed
\nby the erection of traffic signs also but I will leave\tthis
\nmethod\tout of consideration as it was not followed in\tthis
\ncase.\tI  have some doubt whether the contention  that\t the
\norder  mentioned  in  s. 64 A, is for  the  purpose  of\t the
\npresent\t case, the order contained in the  notification,  is
\n‘right, but I will assume that to be so.\n<\/p>\n
If  the Regional Transport Authority’s order was made,\tonly
\non  June  28, 1960, as the respondents contend,\t then  their
\napplication under s. 644 was not barred by limitation for in
\nfact  it  was  made before that date.  But  that  gives\t the
\nrespondents no advantage.  They had by their petition  under
\ns.  64A asked that the Regional Transport Authority’s  order
\nof December 3\/4, 1959, be quashed.  Now, on the\t respondents
\nown  argument, that order was not an order under s. 64 A  at
\nall  and  could\t not  be  set  aside  under  that   section.
\nTherefore, again the order of the State Transport  Authority
\nsetting aside the Regional Transport Authority’s  resolution
\nof  December  3\/4 1959, was incompetent on the face  of\t it.
\nThat  resolution was exhypothesi not art order liable to  be
\nrevised under s. 64A.  The State Transport Authority’s order
\nof  January  6,\t 1961,\twas even  off  this  basis  patently
\nerroneous  and without jurisdiction and so liable to be\t set
\naside,. by a writ.\n<\/p>\n
Then  it  was said that it was in the power  of\t ,the  State
\nTransport Authority to treat the petition
\n402<\/span>
\nunder s. 64A filed on April    13,1960, and pending on\tJune
\n28, 1960, the date of the notification, as an application to
\nset  aside   the order\t   contained in\t that  notification.
\nNow  I do not think the State Transport Authority suo\tmotu
\ncould do so.  It is for\t thepetitioner\t to  decide   what
\nrelief he would ask in\t his application under\ts.  64A.
\nThe State Transport Authority could not against the wish
\nof the petitioner   alter his prayer. Here therespondents
\nnever asked,   that their application under s.64A  should be
\ntreated\t  as an application to set aside   the\t  order
\ncontained in   theNotification\tof June 28, 1960.  However
\nthat  may  be, even if the State Transport  Authority  could
\ntreat  the  petition  of  April 13,  1960,  as\tasking,\t for
\nquashing of the Regional Transport Authority’s order of June
\n28, 60, it did not in fact do so.  This is evident from\t the
\nState Transport Authority’s order of January 6, 1961,  where
\nin considering the question of limitation it proceeds on the
\nbasis  that the period of thirty days provided in s. 64A  is
\nto be counted , from the date of The knowledge of  the.order
\nwhich would be insensible if it had treated the petition  as
\none to set aside the order of June 28, 1960.  Nowhere in its
\njudgment,  of  January\t6, 1961, does  the  State  Transport
\nAuthority  refer to the notification of june 28,  1960.\t  In
\nthe  operative\tpart of its order which I have\tearlier\t set
\nout.  it  expressly  set aside and  cancelled  the  Regional
\nTransport Authorities resolution of December 3\/4, 1959,\t and
\nit  is\tonly as consequential thereto that  it\tstated\tthat
\n“‘the old Bus stand shall continue.” Even in their affidavit
\nin opposition to the petition under Art. 226 the respondents
\nthemselves  did, not make the case that the State  Transport
\nAuthority had treated their application under s. 64A as\t ;In
\napplication  to\t set  aside  the  order\t contained  in\t the
\nnotification  of  June\t28 1960.   In  that  affidavit\tthey
\nStated,\t that the revision filed by; the respondents  before
\nthe  S.T.A. was within the prescribed time as the  same\t was
\nfiled  within about a week of ‘the respondents knowledge  of
\nthe R.T.A.’s
\n 403<\/span>
\norder.”\t They clearly even then proceeded on the basis\tthat
\ntheir  application under s. 64A had been an  application  to
\nset  aside the resolution of December 3\/4, 1959,.  No  doubt
\nthe  High Court did not accept the view that the  period  of
\nthirty\tdays provided by s. 64A has to be counted  from\t the
\ndate  of the knowledge of the order sought to  be  impugned.
\nIt said that it was the notification which was the source of
\nthe  respondents’ grievance and, therefore,  their  petition
\nunder  S., 64A was, not out of time.  The High Court  wholly
\nomitted.   to  notice  that  the  petition   asked   nothing
\nconcerning the notification of June 28, 1960.
\nTherefore,  it\tseems  to me that it is\t to  no\t purpose  to
\nconsider  whether the State Transport Authority could  treat
\nthe  respondents petition under s. 64A as having been  filed
\non or after June 28, 1960, to cancel the order contained  in
\nthe  notification of that date.\t In fact, it did not do\t so.
\nIt  was neither for the High Court nor it is for this  Court
\nnow  to amend the application under s. 64A and treat  it  as one  for sett
\ning aside the Regional\tTransport  Authority’s
\norder contained in the notification of June 28, 1960.\tThat
\napplication was never before either of these Courts.  If the
\nrespondents.  themselves had made an application for such  a
\namendment, then the application would have been dismissed if
\non  its date, thirty days from the date of the\tnotification
\nhad  passed.   Now  on the dates when  the  State  Transport
\nAuthority and the High Court passed their orders, the period
\nof  thirty days so counted had passed.\tOn those  dates\t the
\nrespondents  could not successfully ask for an amendment  of
\ntheir application under s. 64A.\t It, therefore, seems to  me
\nthat if the order of the Regional Transport Authority is  to
\nbe  taken as having been, made, on June 28, 1960,  then\t the
\nrespondents’ petition\t under\t s.  64A   was\t incompetent
\nbecause it sought anorder   for\t  setting   aside   the
\nRegional Transport Authority’s\tresolution of  December
\n3\/4, 1959
\n404<\/span>
\nand  under s. 64A that order could not be effected  at\tAll.
\nin. my view, the appellant municipality was clearly entitled
\nto  a  writ  quashing  “I  order  of  the;  State  Transport
\nAuthority of January 6, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
I would,  therefore; allow the appeal with cost.
\nBy  COURT By majority judgment the appeals are\tallowed\t and
\nthe  matter sent back for disposal in accordance  with\tlaw.
\nParties to bear their own Costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 458, 1963 SCR (2) 273 Author: K D Gupta Bench: Gupta, K.C. Das PETITIONER: MUNICIPAL BOARD, PUSHKAR Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,RAJASTHAN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/11\/1962 BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS BENCH: GUPTA, K.C. DAS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMunicipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport ... on 21 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport ... on 21 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-04T15:03:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"49 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T15:03:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\"},\"wordCount\":8867,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\",\"name\":\"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport ... on 21 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-04T15:03:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport ... on 21 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport ... on 21 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-04T15:03:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"49 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962","datePublished":"1962-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T15:03:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962"},"wordCount":8867,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962","name":"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport ... on 21 November, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-04T15:03:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/municipal-board-pushkar-vs-state-transport-on-21-november-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Municipal Board, Pushkar vs State Transport … on 21 November, 1962"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}