Judgment

SHAH, J.:- These three appeals are filed with certificate granted by the High Court of Madras.

2. On October 17. 1963, Sabulal Sahib holder of a permit for plying stage carriage No. MDS-5217 for the route Namakkal to Pandamangalam agreed to transfer for Rs. 40,000/- the permit and the vehicle to M/s Ravi Roadways - hereinafter called "Roadways". Rs. 27,500/- out of the consideration were paid by the Roadways on the date of the agreement and the balance in February 1964. Sabulal and the Roadways then applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, to sanction the transfer of the permit. The application was notified by the Transport Authority under Sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and on January 24, 1964, at a public hearing the Transport Authority sanctioned the transfer subject to confirmation by the Transport Commissioner. This latter direction was made in compliance with G. O. 2205 issued by the State Government in purported exercise of power under Sec. 43-A of the Motor Vehicles Act introduced by Madras Act 20 of 1948.

3. The Roadways challenged by Writ Petition No. 1298 of 1964 filed in the High Court of Madras the validity of the order of the Transport Authority submitting the order of sanction to the Transport Commissioner, on the plea that the Government was incompetent by executive order to issue any directions fettering the discretion of the Regional Transport Authority when exercising quasi-judicial functions

4. Shortly thereafter Sabulal died, and his estate devolved upon his widow Asia Bi and his children. On October 23, 1964 the Roadways informed the Regional Transport Authority, Salem, about the death of Sabulal and claimed that they were entitled to use the permit as they were in possession of the vehicle and the permit under the agreement of sale. Asia Bi in her turn applied for transfer to her name the permit of the vehicle No. MDS-5217, and addressed a letter to the Regional Transport Authority intimating that she had withdrawn the consent to the transfer of the permit to the Roadways and requested the proceedings for transfer of the permit pending before the Transport Commissioner to be dropped under R. 199-A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. But on the application of the Roadways under Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act to transfer the permit to their name, the Transport Authority, Salem, directed that the permit in respect of stage carriage No. 5217 be transferred to the name of the Roadways.

5. Asia Bi then moved a petition in the High Court of Madras being Petition No. 201 of 1965 - for a writ quashing the order of the Transport Authority. The petition was rejected by Srinivasan, J. Against that order, Asia Bi preferred an appeal under the Letters Patent. The appeal filed by Asia Bi and Petition No. 1298 of 1964 filed by the Roadways were heard by the Madras High Court. The High Court accepted the plea of the Roadways that G. O. No. 2205-Home dated July 1, 1961, issued by the Government of Madras could not control the exercise of quasi-judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authority. But the High Court was of the view that after the death of Sabulal the permit relating to Vehicle No. MDS-5217 could not be transferred under Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the roadways, for, in their view the rights which the Roadways may have could only spring from Section 59 (1) and not Section 61 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The High Court observed that the agreement between the Roadways and Sabulal was

"inchoate in the sense that it was contingent upon the consent to be given by the regulating Authority, namely the State, to the proposed transfer",

and that depended upon a statutory discretion to be exercised by the Transport Authority, and that the Transport Authority had not exercised his discretion, and even if the Roadways had obtained possession of the vehicle during the lifetime of Sabulal they had not succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. The High Court was accordingly of the vie