http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: RAMAUTAR LAL JAIN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAYA KAUR & 13 ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/04/1974

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1274            1974 SCR  (3) 931  1974 SCC  (2) 227

ACT: Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939--Section 46--jurisdiction  of  the Regional Transport Authority to allow substitution of  heirs of a deceased applicant for stage carriage permits.

HEADNOTE: On the question whether the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction under s. 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act to  allow or  refuse substitution of heirs in the case of death of  an applicant for the grant of stage carriage, permit before the grant of a permit. HELD  : The decision of the Appeal Board as well as  of  the Minister  was wrong in holding that the  Regional  Transport Authority  had  acted  beyond  jurisdiction.   The  Regional Transport  Authority has jurisdiction and discretion in  the matter of allowing or refusing substitution.  In the case of death  of  an applicant for the grant of  a  stage  carriage permit before the grant of a permit, the heirs can apply for substitution  in place of, the original applicant.   If  the proceedings are likely to be delayed or a substitution  will be  detrimental to the interests of the public the  Regional Transport  Authority  is not bound  to  allow  substitution. There   is  jurisdiction  to  grant  or  allow   or   refuse substitution.    The  Regional  Transport   Authority   will exercise  discretion in a judicious manner in the facts  and circumstances  of each case as to whether  the  substitution may be allowed. [934 C-D; 933 G-H] In the instant case the Regional Transport Authority granted the  permit  in  the name of the firm  after  observing  the procedure prescribed under the Act. Dhani  Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.R.  507  and M/s.  Ram Autar Lal Jain v. The Minister of Transport & Ors. C.A. No. 2606 of 1969 decided on 28 November. 1973  referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil.  Appeal No.  2593  of 1969. From  the judgment and decree dated 24th March, 1967 of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 459  of 1966. K. K. Sinha and S. K. Sinha, for the appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by- RAY, C. J. : This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 24 March, 1967 of the High Court of Patna. Ram Autar Lal Jain filed an application under section 46  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter called the Act  for grant  of the stage carriage permit on the route  Daltongani to  Mahuaur  in  Bihar.  Before  the  application  could  be disposed  of by the Regional Transport Authority  Ram  Autar Lal  Jain  died on 1 June, 1964.  Thereafter.   Kamal  Kumar Tain  the son of Ram Autar Lal Jain made an  application  to Regional  Transport Authority stating that  the  application filed  by his deceased father might be treated to be one  on behalf  of himself and on behalf of his two minor  brothers. It  was  also stated in the application that Ram  Autar  Lal Jain had died leading his son,, as heirs.  On 4 August. 1964 another application was filed by Kamal 932 Kumar  Jain  praying  that  the  application  filed  by  the deceased  father  might be treated as the application  of  a firm  called M/s.  Ram Autar Lal Jain the appellant  herein. It  was stated there that the three sons and the  widow  of. Ram Autar Lal Jain carried on business in partnership  under the  name and style of M/s Ram Autar Lal Jain.   The  miners were said to be admitted to the benefit of the  partnership. On receipt of the application the matter was notified in the Bihar  Gazette  on  9 September, 1964  for  the  purpose  of inviting objections, if any.  No objections were filed.   On 24  July,  1965  the Transport  Authority  passed  an  order granting a permit in favour of M/s.  Ram Autar Lal Jain  for the-route. The Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority found that the  application for permit had been made by Ram  Autar  Lal Jain  and that the Chotanagpur Regional Transport  Authority had  no  jurisdiction  to  grant permit  in  favour  of  the appellant.   The  appellant  preferred  ail  appeal  to  the Minister.   ’The  Minister upheld the view  of  ,the  Appeal Board and dismissed.the appeal. The  appellant in an application under Articles 226 and  227 of the Constitution asked for a writ of, certiorari to quash the  orders  of  the Appeal Board  of  the  State  Transport Authority,   Patna  and  of  the  Minister   of   Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna. The  question  which was raised before the  High  Court  was whether the Appeal Board erred in holding that the firm  was a different entity from the heirs of Ram Autar Lal Jain.  It was  said  by the Appeal Board that the firm  could  not  be equated with the legal representatives of the deceased.  The High  Court  held that on the facts it was not  possible  to hold that the Appeal Board was in error in holding that  the firm was a different entity. This Court in Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari & Ors. (1) [1969]  2 S. C. R. 507 held that in the case of death of an  applicant before  the final disposal of his application for the  grant of  permit in respect of his vehicle the Regional  Transport Authority  has Power to substitute the person succeeding  to the  possession  of the vehicles in place  of  the  deceased applicant  and  to  allow the  successor  to  prosecute  the application.   The  ratio  of the decision is  that  as  the relief  sought for in the application is dependent upon  and related  to  possession of the vehicles the  application  is capable  of  being  revived at the instance  of  the  person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

A  person  in  possession  of a  transport  vehicle  is  not entitled  to a permit as a matter of right.  The only  right is to make the application for the grant of a permit.  There is  no provision in the Act as to what happens on the  death of  an  applicant  for permit during  the  pendency  of  the application.    The   Regional   Transport   Authority   has jurisdiction  and  discretion in the matter of  allowing  or refusing substitution. If  a  person dies after obtaining the permit  the  Regional Transport  Authority has power under section 61 (2)  of  the Act to transfer the 933 permit  to  the person succeeding to the possession  of  the vehicle  in place of the deceased applicant.   The  Regional Transport  Authority may similarly deal with the case of  an applicant dying during the pendency of an application  under section  57(8) of the Act for varying the conditions of  the permit.   An  application  for renewal  of  a  permit  under section 58 of the Act may raise a similar situation and  the Regional Transport Authority may equally deal with it. In the recent unreported decision in M/s Ram Autar Lal  Jain v.The Minister of Transport & Ors.(2)(Civil Appeal No.  2606 of 1969 decided on 28 November, 1973) this Court dealt  with another  appeal preferred by the same appellant against  the judgment  of  the  Patna High Court.   In  that  appeal  the application  made by Rain Autar Lal Jain was allowed  to  be prosecuted  by  the  firm of M/s.  Ram Autar  Lal  Jain  and permit was granted to the appellant.  The Minister  rejected the  application of the firm of M/s.  Ram Autar Lal Jain  on two grounds.  First the firm not being an heir to Ram  Autar Lal  Jain  should  not have been allowed  to  prosecute  the application   before  the  Regional   Transport   Authority. Secondly, the appellant did not satisfy the criterion set up by  the  Regional  Transport  Authority in  so  far  as  the appellant  was neither new-comer nor a small operator.   The second  ground is on merits.  The firm of M/s Ram Autar  Lal Jain challenged the order before the Patna High Court.   The Patna  High  Court  dismissed  the  petition.   This   Court dismissed  the appeal on the ground that where the heirs  of the  deceased applicant are not in possession of  a  vehicle the decision in Dhani Devi(1) case (supra) would not apply. In Dhani Devi case (supra) the Regional Transport  Authority transferred  to her all the permits held by her husband  for other  routes.   The Regional  Transport  Authority  allowed Dhani Devi to prosecute the application filed by her husband and finally granted permit to her on that application.  This Court  found in Dhani Devi case (supra) that the High  Court was  in  error  in  holding  that  the  Regional   Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in allowing Dhani  Devi to prosecute her husband’s application. In  the  case of death of an applicant for the  grant  of  a stage carriage permit before the grant of a permit the heirs can  apply  for  substitution  in  place  of  the   original applicant.   There  is  no legal right to  the  grant  of  a permit.   The Regional Transport Authority has  jurisdiction and  discretion  in  the  matter  of  allowing  or  refusing substitution. If   the  proceedings  are  likely  to  be  delayed   or   a substitution  will  be detrimental to the  interest  of  the public,  the  Regional transport Authority is not  bound  to allow substitution.  There is jurisdiction to grant or allow or  refuse substitution.  The Regional  Transport  Authority will exercise discretion in a judicious manner in the  facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a  substitution may be allowed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

It appears that this Court in the unreported decision in M/s Ram  Autar Lal Jain (2) case (supra) found that the  absence of possession 934 of a vehicle by the successor of the applicant was a  proper exercise  of discretion by authorities on the facts of  that case. In  the  present  case,  the Application  of  the  firm  for permission  to continue the proceedings after the  death  of Ram Autar Lal Jain was notified in the Gazette.   Objections were  invited.   No objections were filed by  any  one   The Region   Transport Authority granted the permit in the  name of the firm.  The Appeal Board held that Regional  Transport Authority  had no jurisdiction to grant permit in favour  of the  appellant.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority  acted within jurisdiction in allowing substitution.  There was  no jurisdictional  error of the Regional  Transport  Authority. It is a different matter whether the order was justified  on merits.  The Appeal Board and the Minister did not  consider whether  the order of the Regional Transport  Authority  was justified on the merits of the case but merely held that the order was without jurisdiction, The decision of the Appeal Board as well as of the  Minister was  wrong in holding that the Regional Transport  Authority had acted beyond jurisdiction. For these reasons, the decision of the High Court which  did not  interfere with the decision of the Appeal Board and  of the  Minister is set aside.  The matter is remanded  to  the Appeal  Board for a consideration of the application of  the firm on the merits of the case.  All facts and circumstances as well as public interest will be considered by the  Appeal Board.  The appeal is allowed.  There will be no order as to costs. P.B.R.                                Appeal allowed. L84Sup.C.I. /75-2500-24-7-75-GIPP.