DHANI DEVI versus SANT BIHARI & ORS .

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 18-10-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DHANIDEVI 
' 
·.• 
v. 
SANT BIHARI & ORS . 
• 
October 18, 1968 
• 
1l 
(S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
. ' 
'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 
<J 
stage carriage permit on a route under the jurisdiction of the North Bihar 
Regional Transport Authority. On her husband's death during the pen-
dency of the aforesaid application, the appellant came into possession of 
all his transport vehicles. The Regional Transport \A.uthority 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 Traru-
"' 
D 
port 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 res-
peel of his transport vehicles the Regional Authority has power to allow 
the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles to prosecute the 
application filed by the. deceased ·applicant. 
E 
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 
F 
the permit, the Regional Transport Authority has power undelr s. 61(2) 
to transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the 
,. 
vehicles covered by the permit. 
In the case of death of the appliCl;lllt 
; 
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. As the relief sought for in the application is 
dependent upon and related to the possession of the vehicles, the appli-
-· 
·G 
cation is capable of being revived at the instance of the person succeed-
ing to the possession of the vehicles. [509 G-510 CJ 
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 mu.st be made within the appointed time and published in 
• 
H 
the prescribed manner. The representations relating thereto must also 
be made at the appointed time. 
In the event of the death of the appli-
• 
cant 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 time, make another application in his own right. 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
The succes.sor 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 appli-
cation 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 Region.al Transpon ·Authority niay devise 
any 
procedure for dealing with the situation. The Regional Transport Autho-
rity has complete discretion in the matter of allowing or iefllsing substi-
tution. It is not bound to . embark on a prolonged investigation into 
disputed questions of possession. 
Nor is it bound to allow substitution · 
if such orde.r 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 (I), 
58(8) and 58, as well as to appeals under s. 64, and revisions under 
s. 64A. [511 Bl 
Ratanlal v. State Traitspi>rt Authority, A.I.R. 1957 All 
471, dis-
.apprO\·ed. 
Meenakshi v. M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.