DHANI DEVI v. SANT BIHARI & ORS .
Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 507; 1968 INSC 277
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.M. SIKRI , R.S. BACHAWAT
Judgment date:
Case summary
1968 INSC 277. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1968-10-18. DHANI DEVI v. SANT BIHARI & ORS . Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S. C. R. DHANIDEVI ·. • ' v. SANT BIHARI & ORS. • October 18, 1968 (S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ. ] 1l • 'Motor Vehicles Act 4 of 1939, ss. 45 and 57-App/ication for pre· . ' mil-Applicant dying-Possession of vehicle passing to widow of appll-cant-Regional Transport Authority whether has power to allow widow -~· to prosecute application . • The appellant's husband was one of the applicants for a permanent rt Authority, A. I. R. 1957 All 471, dis- . apprO\·ed. Meenakshi v. Mysore S. T. A. Tribunal, A. LR. 1963 Mys. 279, Hanuman Transport Co. v. Meenakshi, C. A. No. 794/63 dt. 20-12-63, Maruthavarwn v. Ba/asubramaniam, A. i. R. 1963 Mad. 292, Kuppu- ~ami v. Ramchandran, A. LR. 1964 Mad. 356, and Director of Public Works v. Ho Po Sang & Ors. , [1961] A. C. 901, referred to. CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: ctvil 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. ' HANI DEVi v. SANT BIHARI (Bachawat, J. ) 509 othe:· 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 r other unsuccessful applicants filed appeals against the order under s. M At the hearing oi the appeals it was contended that tne 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, Chandrakriti 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 pro-vision 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 Vehi- -,,' cles 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. • J No transport vehicle can be used save in accordance with a _, permit issued ~nder Chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. Four t~pes of pe:m1ts may be issued under Chapter IV, viz. , stage car-nage p~rm1t, (ss: ~6 to 48); contract carriage permit (ss. 49 to 51); . pnvate earners permit, (ss. 52 and 53) and public carrier's • penmt,. (ss. 54 . to 56). A p~rson in possession of a transport v~h1de 1s not entJtled to a penmt as a matter of right, see Verappa -:- . P1/lm v. , Raman & Raman Ltd. (') His only right is to make an apph? allon for the gran~ of ~ permit under s.
45 and to a consi- ~ deration of the apj)hcat10n 111 ac. c~rdance with the proyjsions of -• the Act. If he dies after obtammg the permit, the Regional (1) [19521 S. C. R. 583, 591, 595. JSup. C! /69--16 [1969] 2 S. C. R. Transport Authority has power under s. 61(2)_to transfer the permit to the person succeeding tC? t~e possess10n of t~e vehicles covered by the permit. We are mclmed to _thmk that 1! 1 the ~ase 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 d~e'! -5ed applicant and to allow the successor to prosecute the applicat10n. ' ' 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 tinle 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 irtto consideration many matters personal to the successor, such as his experienc~, the facilities at his dis- .. , posal· for operating the services an r 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 ino objection was raised on that ground nor was any adjournment asked (! ) C. A. No. 794/63 decided on 20-12-1963. (2) A. l. R. 1963 Mad. 292. ,... (3) A. I. R. '! 964 Mad. 356, (4) [1961) A. C. 901. DHANI DEVI v. SANT BIHARI (Bachawat, J. ) 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 non-joinder. The Regional Transport Authority directed the grant of the permit to the appellant. On the materials on the record, the t Regional Transport Authority found that the appellant was an experienced and displaced operator. That finding was not chal- ' lenged 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 conti- -·1 nue 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. ~ ' -•
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.