ivil 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
CK Daphtary Attorney General Saptami Jha and BP Jha for the appellant in both the appeals
D Goburdhun for respondent No1 in both the appeals
BP Singh and RB Datar for respondent No 2 in both the appeals
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J
Seerval persons including oen Ram Bichar Singh filed applications for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit for the Chapra Masrakh Siwan Gopalganj route before June 15 1963 and last date appointed for the receipt of the applications by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority
Ram Bichar Singh died on April 12 1965 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 section 612 of the  the Regional Transport Authoritytransferred to her all the permits held by him for 509 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 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 Chandrakiriti Singh and another applicant filed revision petitions against the order under section 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 provision on the subject is to be found in the or the Rules framed thereunder
Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to proceedings under the 
Section 306 of the 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 
Four types of permits may be issued under Chapter IV viz stage carriage permit sections 46 to 48 contract carriage permit sections 49 to 51 private carrier s permit sections 52 and 53 and public carrier s permit sections 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 vs Raman  Raman Ltd 1 His only right is to make an application for the grant of a permit under section 45 and to a consideration of the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act
If he dies after obtaining the permit the Regional 1   591595
C169 16 510 Transport Authority has power under section 612 to transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit
We are inclined to think that in the case 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 deceased applicant and to allow the successor to prosecute the application
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 section 57 an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier permit must be made within the appointed time 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 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 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 Regional Transport Authority may devise any reasonable procedure for dealing with the situation
As stated in American Jurisprudence 2d
2 Administrative Law article 340 p 155 Where the statute does not require any particular method of procedure to be followed by an administrative agency the agency may adopt any reasonable method to carry out its functions see also Corpus Juris Secundum vol73 Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure article 73 p 399
The Regional Transport Authority has complete discretion in the matter of allowing or refusing substitution
It is not bound to embark upon prolonged 511 investigation into disputed questions of succession
Nor is it bound to allow substitution if such an order will delay the proceedings unreasonably or will otherwise be detrimental to the interests of the public generally
Under section 571 an application for a contract carrier s permit or a private carrier s permit may be made at any time and therefore the Regional Transport Authority can more readily allow the successor to prosecute the application filed by his predecessor
The Regional Transport Authority may similarly deal with the situation arising on the death of an applicant for the variation of the permit under section 578 or the renewal of the permit under section 58
Likewise in the case of the death of an applicant during the pendency of an appeal under section 64A or a revision petition under section 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 vs State Transport Authority1 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 Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition
It held that the right to apply for the grant of a permit was not heritable or transferable and Ratanlal s heir had no right to continue the appeals
In Meenakshi vs Mysore STA Tribunal2 several persons including Gopalassetty applied for the grant of a stage carriage permit
The Regional Transport Authority decided to grant the permit to another applicant
Unsuccessful applicants other than Gopalassetty filed appeals against the order
During the pendency of the appeals Gopalassetty died
The appellate tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal
After the matter went back to the Regional Transport Authority the widow of Gopalassetty was substituted in his place and was allowed to prosecute the application presented by him
On a consideration of all the applications the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the widow of Gopalassetty
The order was set aside by the appellate tribunal on the ground inter alia that the widow could not continue the application filed by Gopalassetty
On a writ petition filed by the widow the Mysore High Court set aside the order of the appellate tribunal and restored the order of the Regional Transport Authority
It held that the application presented by Gopalassetty could be 1 AIR 1957 All 471
2 AIR 512 prosecuted by his widow
The decision of the Mysore High Court was reversed by this Court on another point in Hanuman Transport Ca
vs Meenakshi1
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 vs Balasubramaniam2 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 vs Ramchandran3 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 against the order under section 64A
During the pendency of the revision petition she died
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal permitted the guardian of her minor legal representatives to continue the revision petition set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the variation sought for
Two of the rival operators filed writ petitions challenging the order
The Madras High Court held that the legal representative of Lakshimi could continue the revision petition
For the reasons already given we are not inclined to agree with the Allahabad decision
In Director of Public Works vs Ho Po Sang  Ors4 the Privy Council held that the right of a crown lessee of premises in Hongkong to get petition and cross petition for the grant of a rebuilding certificate pursuant to the proposal of the Director of Public Works to be considered by the Governor in Council under sec
3B of the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance Hong Kong 1947 was not a right or a privilege either accrued or acquired within the meaning of see
10 of the Interpretation Ordinance of Hong Kong corresponding to sec
38 of the Interpretation Act 1889 and that on the repeal of the Ordinance the proceedings could not be continued and the Governor could not pass any order under section 3B
This decision is not relevant as we are not concerned in the present case with the effect of repeal of the on a pending application for the grant of a permit
Let us now turn to the 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 1 CANo 79463 decided on 20 12 1963
2 AIR1963 Mad 292
3 AIR1964 Mad 356 4  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 nonjoinder
The Regional Transport Authority directed the grant of the permit to the appellant
On the materials on the record the Regional Transport Authority found that the appellant was an experienced and displaced operator
That finding was not challenged 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 continue 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
GC Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant s husband was one of the applicants for a permanent stage carriage permit on a route under the jurisdiction of the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority
On her husband s death during the pendency of the aforesaid application the appellant came into possession of all his transport vehicles
The Regional Transport Authority 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 Transport Minister in revision under section 64A of the  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 respect of his transport vehicles the Regional Authority has power to a11ow the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles to prosecute the application filled by the deceased applicant
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 section 45 of the and to a consideration of the application under the provisions of the Act
If he dies after obtaining the permit the Regional Transport Authority has power under section 612 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 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 of the deceased applicant
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
509 G 510 C Verappa Pillaiv
Raman
 Raman Ltd   591 595
referred to
Under section 57 an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier permit must be made within the appointed time and published in the prescribed manner
The representations relating thereto must also be made at the appointed time
In the event of the death of the applicant 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 dine make another application in his own right
508 The successor 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 application 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 Regional Transport Authority may devise any procedure for dealing with the situation
The Regional Transport Authority has complete discretion in the matter of allowing or refusing substitution
It is not bound to embark on a prolonged investigation into disputed questions of possession
Nor is it bound to allow substitution if such order 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 sections 571 588 and 58 as well as to appeals under section 64 and revisions under section 64A 511 B Ratanlal vs State Transport Authority AIR 1957 All 471 disapproved Meenakshi vs Mysore STA Tribunal AIR 1963 Mys 279 Hanuman Transport Co vs Meenakshi CA No 79463 dt
20 12 63 Maruthavanan vs Balasubramaniam AIR 1963 Mad 292 Kuppu swarmi vs Ramchandran AIR 1964 Mad 356 and Director of Public Works vs Ho Po Sang  Ors 1961 AC 901 referred to