9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 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 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 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. [1952] S.C.R. 583, 591,595. 3Sup. C1/69--16 His only right is to make an application for the grant of a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during 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 A.I.R. 1957 All. 471 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 Allah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Meenakshi C.A.No. 794/63 decided on 20-12-1963. 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 A.I.R.1963 Mad. 292 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 A.I.R.1964 Mad. 356 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 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 Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
