Ramautar Lal Jain v. Maya Kaur & 13 Ors.

Judgment

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 applicafon under section 46 of the Motor Vchicfos Acl, ·1939 hereinafter called the Act for grant. of the sta~e carria~e permit on the route Da1foo~ani to Mahuataur in Bihar. Before .the apnlication coulrl be disnosrd of bv the Revional Transnort Authority Ram Autar Lal Jain died on 1 June, . 1964. There- ~r. Kamal Kum•r rain the .son of R•m Autar Lal Jain made an aoolication to Re~ional Transport. A nthnri'" ,tatin~ tha( the annlicR- tion filed by his deceased father might be treated to be one on bebaif of himself and on behalf of his two minor brothers. It was also stated in the application that Ram Autar Lal fain had died leaviM his sons ~ as h~irs ..

On 4 Allj(llst, 1964 another application was filed by Kamal Kumar Jain praying that the application ftled by the deceased father might be treated as the application of a firm called Mis. Ram Autar Lal Jain the appellant herein. It was stated there that the three sons and the widmif of Ram Autar Lal Jain carried on business in partnership under the name and style of M/s Ram Autar Lal Jain. The minors 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, I 964 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 Mis. 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 an appeal to t!ie Minister. The Minister lipheM the view of the Appeal Board and dismissed the appeal. TI1e appellant in an application under Articles· Z26 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 Aopeal Board erred in holding that the firm was a tlifl'erent entity from the heirs of Ram Autar Lal Jain. Tt 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 ·~rror in holclitlg that the firm was a different entity. This Court in Dhani Devi v. Sanr Bihari & Ors. (I) (1969] 2 S. C. R. 507 held that in the case of death of an applicant before the final disoosal of his application for the grant of permit in respect of his vehicle the Regional Transoort 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 posse3sion of the vehicles the application is capable of bein!( revived at the instance of the person succecdinc to the oossession of the vehicles. A person in possession of a transport vehicle is not entitled to a nermit as a matter of right. The only right is to make the application for the 2rant of a permit.

There is no provision in· the Act as to what haoocns on the death of an applicant for nermit durin.g the pendency of the application. The Regional Transport Auihori!y has jurisdiction nnrl discretion in the matter of allowing or rcrusing substitution. If a person dies after obtaining the permit the Regional Transport Aut11orit.v has power under section 61 (2) of the Act to transfer the J 11 R. L. JAIN v. MAYA KAUR (Ray, C.J.) permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicJe. in place of the deceased applicant. '!_he Regional Transport Authority may similarly deal with the case of an applicant dyin& during the pendency of an application under sec~on 57 ( 8) of the Act for varyin& the conditions of the permit. An appli(;ation for renewal of a perlllit u1*Jer 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 Mis Ram Autar Lal lain v. The Minister _of Transport & Ors.(2)

(Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 1969 decided on 28 November, 1973) this Coun dealt with another •J:)peal preferred by the s~ l!JJPCllant against the judgment of the Patna Hi&h Court In that' appeal the application made by Rm Autar Lal Jain was oaJ!owed to be prosecuted by the firm of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain and permit was granted to the appellant. The Minister rejected tl!e application of the firm' of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain on two grotinds. First the firm not being an heir to Ram Atitar 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 8!0UBd is on merits. The firm of Ml s Ram Autar Lal Jain challen~ the order before the Patna High Court. The Patna Hi&h Court dismiss~ the petition.

This Court dismissed the appeal on the &r0w*1 that where the heirs of the deceased applicant are not in 1.oossession of a ·vehicle the decision in Dhani Devi(l) case (supra l would not applv. Iii Dhani Devi case (supra) the Regional Transport Authority tranSfcrred 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 Coun found in Dhani Devi case (supra) that the High Court w~s in error in holding that the Regional Transport Authority acted without .iurisdiction in allowing Dhani Devi to prosecute her husband's application. Jn the case, of ~eath 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 qf a permit.

The Regional Transport Authority lias jurisdic· tion 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 publio, the Regional Transport Authority is-not bound to allow substitution. There is jurisdiction to grant or allow or refuse substitution. The Regional Tran.•port Authority v.ilr exe_rcisc discretion. in a judicious manner in the facts and circum&tances of each case as to whether a substitution may be allowed. It appears that this Court in the unreported decision in M / s Ram Autar Lal lain (2) case (supra) found that the absence of possession [1974) ~ s.c.a. of a vehicle by the successor of the applicant was a proper exercise of <liscreli011 by authorities on the facts of that case. In the present case, the application of the firm !of' permission to continuo the proceedings after the death of Ram Autar Lal Jain was notified in the Gazette.

Objections were invited. No objections were filed bv anv one. The Regional Transport Authority granted the permit in the name of the firm. The Appeal Board held that Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant pcrli1it in favour of the appellant. The Regional 'I'ransport Authority acted within jurisdiction in ollowing substitutioa. There was no jurisdictional error of the Rcuinnal Transport Authority. I< is a different matter whether the order was jmtified on merits. The Appeal Board .ind the Minister did not consider whether the order of the Regional Tramport Authority was justified on the merits of the case but merely held that the order was without jurisdict\,10. The decision of the Appeal B"3rd as well os of the Minister was wrcng in hollling that the Re,~ional Transport Authcrity had acted beyond jurisdiction. Fo: th"c reasons, the dec'sion 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 considerotion of the application of the firm on the merits of the case. All facts 'and circumstances as welt as public interest wit1 be considered by the Appeal Board. The appeal is allowed. Thcrn will be no order as to costs. 1'.ll.R. Appeal al/owed.