RAM AUTAR LAL JAIN versus MINISTER OF TRANSPORT & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 28-11-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

514
RAM AUTAR LAL JAIN
v.
MINISTER OF TRANSPORT & ORS.
N01•ember 28, 1973
(K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.)
Motor vehicles Act (4 of 1939),-A.pp/ication for pern1it-Death of applicant-
B
If legal representative can prosecute qpplfcation.
Upon the death of an applicant for a stage carriage permit under Chap. IV of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before his application had been
considered by
Regional Transport Authority, the heirs or legal representatives of the applicant
do not have the right to step into the shoes of the deceased applicant and prosecute
the application filed by him.
·
Section 61 of the Act, deals with cases in Which a transfer of the permit held
can be applied fOr. If it was the intention of the legislature to provide for' succession
to whatever claims an applicant for a pennit has even before a permit is granted
to hini, it would have similarly provided for such a situation. But neither the Motor
Vehicles Act nor the Rules made thereunder provide.-Jor tke substitution of heirs to
prosecute the application of a deceased applicant ,,for a permit. An application for
a pcnnit, gives on1y the right that the merits of ~e applicant should be considered
vis~a-11is other applicants. These merits depend /on the peculiar position, capabi·
Jities and qualifications of the applicant, which may be either personal or peculiarly
or particularly those of a concern or organisation.
I~ is not necessary that an heir
or successor of an applicant will also have the applicant's qualifications or capabilities
\vith regard to a transport service for the benefit of the public. [515H·516C; 517B-C];
Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihari&: Ors., [19ti9] 2 S.C.R. 507, explained.
C1v1L APPELLATE
JURISDICTION : Civil· Appeal No. 2606
of
1969.
c
D
From the Judgment and Order dated the !st July, 1968 of the Patna
E
High Court in C. W. J. C. No. 363 of 1968.
M. C. Chagla, K. K. Sinha, S. K. Sinha and B. B. Sinha, for the
appellant.
R. C. Prasad, for respondent Nos. l to 3.
S. V. Gupte, U. P. Singh and K. N. Sesha1', for respondent No. 4.
· I'
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, J. -This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High
Court at Patna comes before us in the following circumstances : An
application made by one Ram Autar Lal Jain before the Chhotanagpur
Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "RTA")
for grant of a stage carriage permit on a particular route. The appli-
G
cation was made within the time fixed. But, before the application
could be considered Ram Autar Lal Jain died leaving one widow
and two sons as his survivors, heirs and legal representatives. Ram
Autar Lal Jain's heirs'formed a partnership firm called M/s. Ram Autar
Lal Jain and an application was made before the RTA for substitution
of the firm in place of Ram Autar Lal Jain deceased, the original
applicant, so that the firm could prosecute the application before the
R
RTA. The RTA allowed the substitution but split up the route into
two parts and granted one part to the appellant and the other part to
the :Respondent No. 4. The matter did not, however, rest with the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
R. A. JAIN V. MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Beg,/.)
515
decision of the RTA but was taken up in appeal before the State Trans-
port Authority by as many as four different parties. The State Trans-
port Authority set. aside the order of the RTA on various grounds,
such as : (i) that, the route could not be split up: and (ii) that, the
parties in whose favour the permit had been given had failed to produce
the vehicle within the time allowed by the RTA. The State Transport
Authority granted the permit to one Mangtulal T u\shiyan. It did
not go into the question oflegality of substitution of the appellant firm
in place of Ram Autar Lal Jain. Four revision petitions having been
filed against this order, the Minister concerned remanded the case to
the RTA for a reconsideration after hearing al\ the parties which had
appeared before the RTA on April 23, \965.
Mangtulal Tulshiyan
challenged this order of the Minister before the High Court of Patna
which set it aside and directed the Minister to re-hear on-ly the peti-
tioners who ha<! filed revision petitions and not those who had not
complained against the previous order before the Minister. The Minis-
ter, on this occasion, granted the permit in favour of Bijoy Bahadur
Singh (who is respondent No. 4 in this appeal) on the ground that

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