http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: DHANI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SANT BIHARI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/10/1968

BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1970 AIR  759            1969 SCR  (2) 514  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1971 SC1804  (23)  D          1972 SC1324  (15)  E&D        1974 SC 326  (4,5)  R          1974 SC1274  (6,9,10)

ACT: Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939, ss. 45 and 57--Application for permit--Applicant  dying--possession of vehicle  passing  to widow of applicant-Regional Transport Authority whether  has power to allow widow to prosecute application.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant’s  husband was one of the  applicants  for  a permanent  stage  carriage  permit  on  a  route  under  the jurisdiction   of   the  North  Bihar   Regional   Transport Authority.   On her husband’s death during the  pendency  of the   aforesaid   application,  the  appellant   came   into possession  of  all his transport  vehicles.   The  Regional Transport  Authority allowed the appellant to prosecute  the application and directed the grant of the permit to her. The appeal  filed by the unsuccessful  applicants  against  this order  was allowed by the State Transport Authority but  the Transport  Minister, in revision under s. 64A of  the  Motor Vehicles  Act  1939,  decided in favour  of  the  appellant. Against the orders of the Transport Minister  writ-petitions were filed in the High Court and were allowed.The ,appellant came  to  this Court.  The question  for  consideration  was whether  on the death of an applicant for a  stage  carriage permit  in  respect of his transport vehicles  the  Regional Authority  has power to a11ow the person succeeding  to  the possession  of  the vehicles, to prosecute  the  application filled by the deceased applicant. HELD: The High Court was in error in setting aside the order of the Transport Minister., A  person  in  possession  of a  transport  vehicle  is  not entitled  to a permit as a matter of right.  His only  right is to make an application under s. 45 of the Motor  Vehicles Act  and  to a consideration of the  application  under  the provisions  of  the  Act. If he  dies  after  obtaining  the permit, the Regional Transport Authority has power under  s. 61(2) to transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession  of the vehicles covered by the permit.   In  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

case of death of the applicant before the final disposal  of his application for the grant of a permit in  respect of his vehicles  the  Regional  Transport Authority  has  power  to substitute the person succeeding to the possession of the of the.  deceased  applicant. As the relief sought for  in  the application is dependent upon and related to the  possession of the vehicles, the application is capable of being revived at  the instance of the person succeeding to the  possession of the vehicles. [509 G-510 C]    Verappa Pillai.v. Raman. & Raman Ltd., [1952] S.C.R. 583, 591, 595. referred to.                        .    Under s. 57 an application for a stage carriage permit or a  public carrier permit must be made within  the  appointed time   and   published  in  the  prescribed   manner.    The representations  relating thereto must also be made  at  the appointed time.  In the event of the death of the  applicant after  the  expiry  of the time  appointed  for  making  the application, the person succeeding to the possession of  the vehicles  cannot, having regard to the lapse of  dine,  make another application in his own right. 508 The successor cannot obtain the permit unless he is  allowed to  prosecute the application filed by his  predecessor  and there is no reason why  he cannot be permitted to do so.     Section  57 does not deal with the situation arising  on the death of an applicant nor has it prescribed any time for the  making  of  an  application  for  substitution  of  the successor or for the filing of  objections against the grant of  the  permit to him.  In the absence of  any  statute  or statutory  rule the Regional Transport Authority may  devise any procedure for dealing with the situation.  The  Regional Transport Authority has complete discretion in the matter of allowing  or  refusing  substitution.  It is  not  bound  to embark on a prolonged investigation  into disputed questions of  possession.   Nor is it bound to allow  substitution  if such  order will delay the proceedings unreasonably or  will otherwise  be  detrimental to the interests  of  the  public generally. [510 C--511 A]     The same principle would apply to applications under ss. 57(1), 58(8) and 58, as well as to  appeals under s. 64, and revisions under s. 64A. [511 B]     Ratanlal  v. State Transport Authority, A.I.R. 1957  All 471, disapproved     Meenakshi v. Mysore S.T.A. Tribunal,  A.I.R.  1963  Mys. 279, Hanuman Transport Co. v. Meenakshi, C.A. No. 794/63 dt. 20-12-63, Maruthavanan v. Balasubramaniam A.I.R.  1963  Mad. 292,  Kuppu swarmi v. Ramchandran, A.I.R. 1964 Mad. 356, and Director of Public ’Works v. Ho Po Sang & Ors., [1961]  A.C. 901, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals  Nos.  1264 and .1265 of 1968.     Appeals  from  the judgment and order, dated  March  18, 1968  of  the Patna High Court in  Civil  Writ  Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 235 and 287 of 1967.     C.K.  Daphtary, Attorney-General, Saptami Jha  and  B.P. Jha, for the appellant (in both the appeals).     D. Goburdhun, for respondent No.1 (in both the appeals).     B.P. Singh and R.B. Datar, for respondent No. 2 (in both the appeals).     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

   Bachawat,  J. Seerval persons including oen  Ram  Bichar Singh filed applications for  the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit for the Chapra-Masrakh-Siwan-Gopalganj route before June 15, 1963 and last date appointed for the receipt of  the applications .by the North Bihar Regional  Transport Authority.   Ram Bichar Singh died on April 12, 1965  before the final disposal of his application.  His widow Dhani Devi succeeded  to the possession of the transport vehicles  left by him and accordingly under s. 61(2) of the Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939, the Regional Transport Authority,transferred  to her all the permits held by him for 509 other  routes.   On  May 4,  1966,  the  Regional  Transport Authority  considered  all the applications,  allowed  Dhani Devi  to prosecute the application filed by her husband  and directed the grant of the permit to her.Sant Bihari  Sharma, Chandra Kriti Singh and other unsuccessful applicants  filed appeals  against the order under 64.  At the hearing of  the appeals  it  was  contended  that  the  order  was   without jurisdiction  as  Dhani Devi had no right to  prosecute  the application  filed  by  her  husband.  The  State  Transport Appellate  Authority accepted the contention, set aside  the order appealed from and directed the grant of the permit  to Sant Bihari Sharma and in case of his failure to comply with certain   conditions   gave   the   second   preference   to Chandrakriti  Singh.  Dhani Devi, .Chandrakiriti  Singh  and another applicant filed revision petitions against the order under  s. 64A.  The Transport Minister allowed  the-revision petition  of  Dhani  Devi  and restored  the  order  of  the Regional Transport Authority.  He held that the order of the Regional  Transport Authority was not without  jurisdiction. Sant  Bihari  Sharma and Chandrakriti Singh filed  two  writ petitions  in  the  Patna High Court  challenging  the  said order.   The High Court allowed the petitions,  quashed  the order for the grant of permit to Dhani Devi and remanded the matter  for disposal according to law. The  present  appeals have  been filed by Dhani Devi against the orders passed  by the High Court.     The sole question in this appeal is whether on the death of  an applicant for a stage carriage permit in  respect  of his transport vehicles the Regional Transport Authority  has power  to allow the person succeeding to the  possession  of the  vehicles  to  prosecute the application  filed  by  the deceased applicant.  No express provision on the subject  is to  be found in the Motor Vehicles Act or the  Rules  framed thereunder.   Order 22 of the Code of Civil  Procedure  does not  apply  to  proceedings under the  Motor  Vehicles  Act. Section  306  of  the Indian Succession  Act,  1925  has  no application as no executor or administrator was appointed to the estate of the deceased Ram Bichar Singh. ’     No transport vehicle can be used save in accordance with a permit issued under Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles  Act. Four types of permits may be issued under Chapter IV,  viz., stage  carriage  permit, (ss. 46 to 48);  contract  carriage permit (ss. 49 to 51); private carrier’s permit, (ss. 52 and 53)  and public carrier’s permit, (ss. 54 to 56).  A  person in  possession of a transport vehicle is not entitled  to  a permit  as a matter of right, see Verappa Pillai v. Raman  & Raman Ltd. (1) His only right is to make an application  for the grant of a permit under s. 45 and to a consideration  of the  application  in accordance with the provisions  of  the Act.  If he dies after obtaining the permit, the Regional (1) [1952] S.C.R. 583, 591,595. 3Sup. C1/69--16 510

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

Transport Authority has power under s. 61(2) to transfer the permit  to  the person succeeding to the possession  of  the vehicles  covered by the permit.  We are inclined  to  think that in the case of death of the applicant before the  final disposal  of  his application for the grant of a  permit  in respect of his vehicles 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.  As  the relief  sought for in the application is dependent upon  and related  to the possession of the vehicles, the  application is  capable of being revived at the instance of  the  person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles.     Under  s. 57 an application for a stage carriage  permit or a public carrier permit must be made within the appointed time   and   published  in  the  prescribed   manner.    The representations  relating thereto must also be  made  before the  appointed  time.   In  the event of  the  death  of  an applicant after the expiry of the time appointed for  making the  applications, the person succeeding .to the  possession of  the vehicle cannot, having regard to the lapse of  time, make  another application in his own right.   The  successor cannot  obtain the permit unless he is allowed to  prosecute the  application  filed  by his predecessor and  we  see  no reason  why  he  cannot be permitted to do  so.   Where  the successor  is  allowed  to prosecute  the  application,  the Regional   Transport  Authority  may  have  to   take   into consideration  many matters personal to the successor,  such as  his  experience,  the facilities  at  his  disposal  for operating the services and his adverse record,  if any.  The matters personal to the deceased applicant can no longer  be taken  into  account.   The  rival  applicants  should,   if necessary  be given suitable opportunity to file  objections against  the grant of the permit to the successor.   Section 57 does not deal with the situation arising on the death  of an  applicant nor has it prescribed any time for the  making of  an application for substitution of the successor or  for the  filing of objections  against the  grant of the  permit to him. In the absence of any statute or statutory rule  the Regional  Transport  Authority  may  devise  any  reasonable procedure  for  dealing with the situation.   As  stated  in American  Jurisprudence,  2d. vol. 2  (Administrative  Law), Art.  340, p. 155: "Where the statute does not  require  any particular  method  of  procedure  to  be  followed  by   an administrative  agency, the agency may adopt any  reasonable method  to carry out its functions." (see also Corpus  Juris Secundum,   vol.73   (Public   Administrative   Bodies   and Procedure,  Art.  73,  p.  399).   The  Regional   Transport Authority has complete discretion in the matter of  allowing or  refusing substitution.  It is not bound to  embark  upon prolonged 511 investigation into disputed questions of succession.  Nor is it  bound to allow substitution if such an order will  delay the   proceedings   unreasonably  or   will   otherwise   be detrimental to the interests of the public generally.     Under  s. 57(1) an application for a contract  carrier’s permit  or  a private carrier’s permit may be  made  at  any time,  and  therefore the Regional Transport  Authority  can more   readily   allow  the  successor  to   prosecute   the application filed by his predecessor. The Regional Transport Authority  may similarly deal with the situation arising  on the  death of an applicant for the variation of  the  permit under  s.  57(8) or the renewal of the permit under  s.  58. Likewise,  in the case of the death of an  applicant  during

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the  pendency  of  an  appeal under s.  64A  or  a  revision petition  under  s.  64A the  appellate  or  the  revisional authority  has  power  if it thinks fit  to  substitute  the successor in place of the deceased applicant in the  records of the proceedings.     We  may  now  refer to the  relevant  decisions  on  the subject under consideration.  In Ratanlal v. State Transport Authority(1)  one  Munnalal  died  during  the  pendency  of appeals  filed  by  him against  the  orders  rejecting  his application  for  the grant of a stage carriage  permit  and directing the issue of the permit to another applicant.  The appellate  authority refused to order substitution  of   his son   Ratanlal   in   his   place.   Ratanlal filed  a  writ petition  challenging the order.  The Allahabad  High  Court dismissed the petition.  It held that the right to apply for the grant of a permit was not heritable or transferable  and Ratanlal’s  heir had no right to continue the  appeals.   In Meenakshi  v.  Mysore  S.T.A.  Tribunal(2)  several  persons including  Gopalassetty  applied for the grant  of  a  stage carriage  permit.  The Regional Transport Authority  decided to  grant  the permit to  another  applicant.   Unsuccessful applicants other than Gopalassetty filed appeals against the order.   During  the pendency of  the  appeals  Gopalassetty died.  The  appellate  tribunal  allowed  the  appeals   and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority  for fresh  disposal. After the matter went back to the  Regional Transport   Authority,   the  widow  of   Gopalassetty   was substituted  in his place and was allowed to  prosecute  the application presented by him.  On a consideration of all the applications  the Regional Transport Authority  granted  the permit to the widow of Gopalassetty. The order was set aside by the appellate tribunal on the ground inter alia that  the widow   could   not  continue  the  application   filed   by Gopalassetty.  On  a writ petition filed by the  widow,  the Mysore  High  Court  set aside the order  of  the  appellate tribunal  and restored the order of the  Regional  Transport Authority.  It  held  that  the  application  presented   by Gopalassetty could be (1) A.I.R. 1957 All. 471.   (2) A.I.R. 1963 Mysore, 279. 512 prosecuted by his widow.  The decision of the  Mysore   High Court was reversed by this Court on another point in Hanuman Transport   Ca.  v.  Meenakshi(1).   But  this  Court   then declined to express any opinion on the question whether  the successor  can  be permitted to  prosecute  the  application filed    by   his    predecessor.    In   Maruthuvanan    v. Balasubramaniam(2)  two partners of a firm filed an  appeal’ from an order rejecting their application for the grant of a permit.   During  the  pendency of the  appeal  one  of  the partners  died.  The Madras High Court held that the  appeal could be continued by the surviving partner.  In  Kuppuswami v.  Ramchandran(3) one Lakshimi applied for a  variation  of the stage carriage permits held by her.  Her application was rejected  by the Regional Transport Authority.  She filed  a revision petition against the order under s. 64A. During the pendency  of  the  revision petition she  died.   The  State Transport  Appellate Tribunal permitted the guardian of  her minor   legal  representatives  to  continue  the   revision petition,  set  aside the order of  the  Regional  Transport Authority and granted the variation sought for.  Two of  the rival operators filed writ petitions challenging the  order. The Madras High Court held that the legal representative  of Lakshimi  could  continue  the revision  petition.  For  the reasons already given, we are not inclined to agree with the Allahabad  decision.  In Director of Public Works v.  Ho  Po

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

Sang  & Ors.(4) the Privy Council held that the right  of  a crown  lessee  of premises in Hongkong to get  petition  and cross-petition  for  the grant of a  rebuilding  certificate pursuant to the proposal of the Director of Public Works  to be  considered by the Governor-in-Council under sec.  3B  of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (Hong Kong), 1947 was  not a right or a privilege either accrued or acquired within the meaning  of see. 10 of the Interpretation Ordinance of  Hong Kong,  corresponding to sec. 38 of the  Interpretation  Act, 1889   and  that  on  the  repeal  of  the  Ordinance,   the proceedings  could not be continued and the  Governor  could not  pass  any  order under s. 3B.   This  decision  is  not relevant,  as we are not concerned in the present case  with the effect of repeal of the Motor Vehicles Act on a  pending application for the grant of a permit..     Let  us now turn to the facts of the present  case.  The appellant’s  husband Ram Bichar Singh made  ’an  application for  the grant of a stage carriage permit.  Upon his   death during  the  pendency  of  the  application,  the   Regional Transport  Authority allowed the appellant to prosecute  the application  filed by him.’ She made no  formal  application for substitution; but no objection was raised on that ground nor was any adjournment asked (1) C.A.No. 794/63 decided on 20-12-1963. (2) A.I.R.1963 Mad. 292. (3) A.I.R.1964 Mad. 356. (4) [1961] A.C. 901. 513 for  by the rival claimants in order to enable them to  file objections.   Ram Bichar Singh is said to have  left  behind other  heirs also, but no objection was taken on the  ground of  their  nonjoinder.   The  Regional  Transport  Authority directed  the grant of the permit to the appellant.  On  the materials  on the record, the Regional  Transport  Authority found  that the appellant was an experienced  and  displaced operator.   That finding was not challenged in appeal.   The only  point taken in the appeal was that the application  of Ram Bichar Singh had abated and that the Regional  Transport Authority  had  no  power  to  allow  her  to  continue  the application.    The   Appellate   Authority   accepted   the contention  and set aside the order directing the  grant  of the permit to the appellant.  The Transport Minister rightly set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and held that the Regional Transport Authority has power to permit her  to prosecute the application filed by her deceased husband.  In our  opinion, the High Court was in error in  setting  aside the order of the Transport Minister.     In the result, the appeals are allowed, the order of the High  Court  is  set aside and the order  of  the  Transport Minister is restored.  There will be no order as to costs. G.C.                                       Appeals allowed. 514