SAHIB TRANSPORT SERVICE SANKARANKOIL Vs. K BALASUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been preferred against a common order of our learned brother Srinivasan, J. , in W. P. Nos. 1263 of 1964 and 3015 of 1965 discharging the Rule Nisi and dismissing the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the constitution. By the writs the appellants questioned the validity of the transfer and renewal in favour of the first respondent herein of six permits for stage carriages under Sections 58 and 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 by the Regional transport Authority, Tirunelveli.

(2.) THE six permits whose period was to expire on 3-1-1964 were held by one ramaswamy Doss, and as provided under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended under subsequent Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) he duly applied for renewal of the said six permits on 9-10-1963. The application for renewal was notified under Section 57 (3) of the Act, on 28-10-1963. The appellant before us, a bus operator, preferred objections to the renewal of the six permits and also filed applications for grant to him of the six permits on the routes for his vehicles. The objections and the applications for fresh grant of permits to him were made by the appellant on 18-11-1963. The applications for fresh grant were notified in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Ramaswamy Doss, as may be expected, duly filed his objections to the fresh grant of permits claimed by the appellant. As the permits were expiring on 3-1-1964, the Regional Transport authority under Section 62 (d) of the Act on 27-12-1963 itself granted temporary permits to Ramaswamy Doss for his six vehicles to take effect from 4-1-1964, pending decision on his application for renewal of the permits. Before the application for renewal came up for hearing and orders were passed, even on 7-11964 ramaswamy Doss died. The first respondent herein, son of Ramaswamy Doss, on 24-1-1964, intimated the Regional Transport Authority under Section 61 (1) of his intention as the person who had succeeded to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permits to use the permits. He also requested the Regional Transport Authority to implead him in the renewal application as the successor of the deceased ramaswamy Doss that he may pursue the application for renewal. On 25-1-1964 the Regional Transport Authority took up for enquiry the application that had been made by Ramaswamy Doss for renewal of the permits. He granted the request of the first respondent herein who claimed to have succeeded to the possession of the vehicles in question by virtue of an agreement entered into between all the heirs of the deceased permit holder to continue the proceedings and after due hearing and consideration of the matters involved, overruling the objections of the appellants, granted the application for renewal of the permits. He ordered that the permits would be renewed for the usual period of three years. As a consequence, the application of the appellant herein for fresh grant of permits to him for the six routes involved was rejected. The first respondent was directed to send up the necessary certificates along with B permits of the buses for due endorsement of the renewal. The first respondent submitted the existing permits for endorsement of renewal and on 10-2-1964 applied also under Section 61 (2) of the Act for transfer of the permits. The Regional Transport Authority on 10-2-1964 endorsed on the permits their renewal for three years from 31-1-1964, noting that from 31-1964 to 31-1-1964 they were covered by the temporary permits. The permits were also transferred to the name of the first respondent. The appellant preferred appeals to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal from the orders refusing the grant of fresh permits to him. He also filed a revision to the tribunal against the order granting renewal. On the rejection by the Tribunal of his appeals the appellant came up to this Court with W. P. No. 1263 of 1964 from the orders of the Tribunal dismissing the appeals. As it has been held that there could be no direct revision to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal from an order of the regional Transport Authority. W. P. No. 3015 of 1965 was filed by the appellant questioning the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the renewal.

(3.) THE questions involved in both the writ petitions revolve round the validity of the renewals and the only questions argued by the appellant in the circumstances set out above were: whether the Authorities were in law competent to renew the permits, the applicant having died after the period of the permits had expired and before they were renewed, and whether the renewal could be effect ed in the name of the first respondent as the successor in interest of the deceased. The questions have been answered against the applicants; hence these appeals.