ORDER G. P. Singh, C. J. - 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner challenges the validity of rule 12-A (4) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Rules, 1959, made under section 23 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959. The impugned rule reads as follows: - "12-A.(4) The application for revision shall be presented in duplicate and accompanied by a certified copy of the order against which revision is made. Where any tax has been assessed in the order against which revision has been made, the revision application shall be accompanied with treasury challan evidencing payment of assessed amount." 2. The petitioner was assessed to passenger tax by nine orders or the Tax Officer passed on 12th October 1978. The petitioner's case is that he had a right to file revisions against these orders under section 12-A of the Act without depositing any tax and that this right could not be restricted by the rule making authority by imposing a condition of depositing the tax before filing the revision applications. The petitioner submits that as the revisional authority could not have been competent to decide the validity of the impugned rule, he came directly to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Section 12(1) of the Act confers a light of appeal to every operator objecting to a notice of demand served on him under section 10. This right is subject to the restriction contained in the proviso to the section which says that no appeal shall be entertained unless the sum specified in the notice of demand in respect of which the appeal has been preferred has been paid. Section 12-A deals with revision. The section reads as follows:- “12-A. Revision-The prescribed authority may at any time on its own motion or on an application made by the aggrieved party, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to 1he correctness of any order passed by a Tax Officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by a Tax Officer and pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit. Provided that- (i) no application for revision shall be entertained against an order from which appeal has been made and unless it is presented within ninety days of the passing of the Older; (ii) no order shall be varied or revised in revision unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them for being beard; (iii) no order shall he passed on expiration of a period of three years from the date of the passing of original order” A perusal of section 12-A will show that the right to file a revision conferred on an aggrieved party by this provision is not restricted, unlike an appeal, by the condition of depositing the tax before the revision is entertained, As earlier noticed a specific provision is made in section 12 for restricting the right of appeal by requiring deposit of tax before the appeal is entertained and omission of such a requirement in section 12-A dealing with revision goes to show that the Legislature intended that the right of revision available to an aggrieved party should not be subject to this restriction. The rule making power is conferred by section 23. Sub-section (1) of section 3 enables the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. Sub-section (2)(f) enables the State Government to make rules providing for "generally regulating the procedure to be followed and the forms to be adopted in proceedings under the Act". These are the provisions on which the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance for supporting the vires of the impugned rule. In our opinion, none of these provisions enables the Slate Government to frame a rule to conflict with the intention of the Legislature as impliedly expressed in section 12-A of conferring an unrestricted right of revision. If the Legislature conferred an unrestricted right of revision, rules cannot be made which put a serious fetter in the exercise of this right. It is true that rules can be made for regulating the procedure for exercise of the right but in the garb of making procedural rules onerous impediments and restrictions cannot be placed in the exercise of the right. It is true that rules can be made for regulating the procedure for exercise of the right but in the garb of making procedural rules onerous impediments and restrictions cannot be placed in the exercise of the right. The view taken by us is supposted by a Division Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Daya Krishan v. The Assessing Authority cum Excise and Taxation Officer Enforcement), Ferozepore and Others, 1966 8 STC 117 at p.134. In that case also the right of revision conferred by section 21 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act was unrestricted. Rules were, however, made requiring the aggrieved party to deposit the tax before the revision could be entertained. It was held that such a rule was in excess of the rule making power as it placed impediments and restrictions of an onerous and burdensome nature in exercise of the right of revision which was unrestricted under the Act. We fully agree with the view expressed by the Punjab High Court in the said case. 4. The petition is allowed. We declare Rule 12-A (4) as invalid and void, being in excess of the rule making power of the State Government. There shall be no order as to costs. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner.