At the hearing of the appeals it was companytended that the order was without jurisdiction as Dhani Devi had numberright to prosecute the application filed by her husband.
It held that the right to apply for the grant of a permit was number heritable or transferable and Ratanlals heir had numberright to companytinue the appeals.
In Maruthuvanan v. Balasubramaniam 2 two partners of a firm filed an appeal from an order rejecting their application for the grant of a permit.
He held that the order of the Regional Transport Authority was number without jurisdiction.
235 and 287 of 1967.
During the pendency of the appeal one of the partners died.
Sant Bihari Sharma and Chandrakriti Singh filed two writ petitions in the Patna High Court challenging the said order.
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.
The State Transport Appellate Authority accepted the companytention, set aside the order appealed from and directed the grant of the permit to Sant Bihari Sharma and in case of his failure to companyply with certain companyditions gave the second preference to Chandrakriti Singh.
v. Meenakshi 1 .
Dhani Devi, .Chandrakiriti Singh and another applicant filed revision petitions against the order under s. 64A. The Transport Minister allowed the revision petition of Dhani Devi and restored the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
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.
The Regional Transport Authority decided to grant the permit to another applicant.
On a companysideration of all the applications the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the widow of Gopalassetty.
The present appeals have been filed by Dhani Devi against the orders passed by the High Court.
Appeals from the judgment and order, dated March 18, 1968 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Cases Nos.
for by the rival claimants in order to enable them to file objections.
The order was set aside by the appellate tribunal on the ground inter alia that the widow companyld number companytinue the application filed by Gopalassetty.
2 A.I.R. 1963 Mysore, 279.
The decision of the Mysore High Court was reversed by this Court on another point in Hanuman Transport Ca.
It held that the application presented by Gopalassetty companyld be A.I.R. 1957 All.
The appellate tribunal allowed the appeals and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal.
Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure does number apply to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act.
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.
On the materials on the record, the Regional Transport Authority found that the appellant was an experienced and displaced operator.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
During the pendency of the appeals Gopalassetty died.
prosecuted by his widow.
Sant Bihari Sharma, Chandra Kriti Singh and other unsuccessful applicants filed appeals against the order under 64.
Her application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority.
She filed a revision petition against the order under s. 64A. During the pendency of the revision petition she died.
Two of the rival operators filed writ petitions challenging the order.
1264 and .1265 of 1968.
The State Transport Appellate Tribunal permitted the guardian of her minor legal representatives to companytinue the revision petition, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the variation sought for.
That finding was number challenged in appeal.
4 1961 A.C. 901.
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.
The Regional Transport Authority directed the grant of the permit to the appellant.
On May 4, 1966, the Regional Transport Authority companysidered all the applications, allowed Dhani Devi to prosecute the application filed by her husband and directed the grant of the permit to her.
Goburdhun, for respondent No.1 in both the appeals .
2 in both the appeals .
Ram Bichar Singh is said to have left behind other heirs also, but numberobjection was taken on the ground of their numberjoinder.
K. Daphtary, Attorney General, Saptami Jha and B.P. Jha, for the appellant in both the appeals .
His widow Dhani Devi succeeded to the possession of the transport vehicles left by him and accordingly under s. 61 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Regional Transport Authority,transferred to her all the permits held by him for other routes.
P. Singh and R.B. Datar, for respondent No.
Unsuccessful applicants other than Gopalassetty filed appeals against the order.
