Case: Ramautar Lal Jain Vs. Maya Kaur &amp; 13 Ors

facts it was not possible to hold that the Appeal Board was in error in holding that the firm was a different entity.6. This Court in Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihar, (1969) 2 SCR 567 = (AIR 1970 SC 759 ) held that in the case of death of an applicant before the final disposal of his application for the grant of permit in respect of his vehicle 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. The ratio of the decision is that 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.7. A persons in possession of a transport vehicle is not entitled to a permit as a matter of right. The only right is to make the application for the grant of a permit. There is no provision in the Act as to what happens on the death of an applicant for permit during the pendency of the application. The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of allowing or a refusing substitution.8. If a person dies after obtaining the permit the Regional Transport Authority has power under S. 61 (2) of the Act to transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle in place of the deceased applicant. The Regional Transport Authority may similarly deal with the case of an applicant dying during the pendency of an application under Section 57 (8) of the Act for varying the conditions of the permit. An application for renewal of a permit under S.58 of the Act may raise a similar situation and the Regional Transport Authority may equally deal with it.9. In the recent unreported decision in M/s. Ram Lal Jain v. Minister of Transport, (Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 1969 decided on 28-11-1973) = (reported in AIR 1974 SC 326 ) this court dealt with another appeal preferred by the same appellant against the judgment of the Patna High Court. In that appeal the application made by Ram Autar Lal Jain was allowed to be prosecuted by the firm of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain and permit was granted to the appellant. The Minister rejected the application of the firm of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain on two grounds. First the firm not being an heir to Ram Autar 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 a newcomer nor a small operator. The second ground is on merits. The firm of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain challenged the order before the Patna High Court. The Patna High Court dismissed the petition. This Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that where the heirs of the deceased applicant are not in possession of a vehicle the decision in Dhani Devi case, (1969) 2 SCR 507 = AIR 1970 SC 759 ) (supra) would not apply.10. In Dhani Deiv case, (1969) 2 SCR 507 = (AIR 1970 SC 759 ) (supra) the Regional Transport Authority transferred 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 Court found in Dhani Devi case, (1969) 2 SCR 527 = (AIR 1979 SE 759) (supra) that the High Court was in error in holding that the Regional Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in allowing Dhani Devi to prosecute her husbands application.11. In the case of death 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 of permit. The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of allowing or refusing substitution.12. If the proceedings are likely to be delayed or a substitution will be detrimental to the interest of the public, the Regional Transport Authority is not bound to allow substitution. There is jurisdiction to grant or allow or refuse substitution. The Regional Transport Authority will exercise discretion in a judicious manner in the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a substitution may be allowed.13. It appears that this Court in the unreported decision in M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain case, Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 1969, D/- 28-11-1973 = (now reported in AIR 1974 SC 326 ) (supra) found that the absence of possession of a vehicle by the successor of the applicant was a proper exercise of discretion by the authorities on the facts of that case.14. In the present case, the application of the firm for permission to continue the proceedings after the death of Ram Autar Lal Jain was notified in the Gazette. Objections were invited. No objections were filed by any 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 permit in favour of the appellant. The Regional Transport Authority acted within jurisdiction in allowing substitution. There was no jurisdictional error of the Regional Transport Authority. It is a different matter whether the order was justified on merits. The Appeal Board and the Minister did not consider whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority was justified on the merits of the case but merely held that the order was without jurisdiction.15. The decision of the Appeal Board as well as of the Minister was wrong in holding that the Regional Transport Authority had acted beyond jurisdiction.16

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. In the case of death 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 of permit. The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of allowing or refusing substitution.12. If the proceedings are likely to be delayed or a substitution will be detrimental to the interest of the public, the Regional Transport Authority is not bound to allow substitution. There is jurisdiction to grant or allow or refuse substitution. The Regional Transport Authority will exercise discretion in a judicious manner in the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether a substitution may be allowed.In the present case, the application of the firm for permission to continue the proceedings after the death of Ram Autar Lal Jain was notified in the Gazette. Objections were invited. No objections were filed by any 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 permit in favour of the appellant. The Regional Transport Authority acted within jurisdiction in allowing substitution. There was no jurisdictional error of the Regional Transport Authority. It is a different matter whether the order was justified on merits. The Appeal Board and the Minister did not consider whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority was justified on the merits of the case but merely held that the order was without jurisdiction.15. The decision of the Appeal Board as well as of the Minister was wrong in holding that the Regional Transport Authority had acted beyond jurisdiction.This Court in Dhani Devi v. Sant Bihar, (1969) 2 SCR 567 = (AIR 1970 SC 759  ) held that in the case of death of an applicant before the final disposal of his application for the grant of permit in respect of his vehicle 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. The ratio of the decision is that 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.In the case of death 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 of permit. The Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction and discretion in the matter of allowing or refusing substitution.12. If the proceedings are likely to be delayed or a substitution will be detrimental to the interest of the public, the Regional Transport Authority is not bound to allow substitution. There is jurisdiction to grant or allow or refuse substitution. The Regional Transport Authority will exercise discretion in a judicious manner in the facts and circumstances 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 Jain case, Civil Appeal No. 2606 of 1969, D/= (now reported in AIR 1974 SC 326  ) (supra) found that the absence of possession of a vehicle by the successor of the applicant was a proper exercise of discretion by the authorities on the facts of that case.14.In the present case, the application of the firm for permission to continue the proceedings after the death of Ram Autar Lal Jain was notified in the Gazette. Objections were invited. No objections were filed by any 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 permit in favour of the appellant. The Regional Transport Authority acted within jurisdiction in allowing substitution. There was no jurisdictional error of the Regional Transport Authority. It is a different matter whether the order was justified on merits. The Appeal Board and the Minister did not consider whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority was justified on the merits of the case but merely held that the order was without jurisdiction.15. The decision of the Appeal Board as well as of the Minister was wrong in holding that the Regional Transport Authority had acted beyond jurisdiction.