Judgment

RAY, C. J.:- This appeal by certificate is from the judgment dated 24 March, 1967 of the High Court of Patna.

2. Ram Autar Lal Jain filed an application under Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter called the Act for grant of the stage carriage permit on the route Daltonganj to Mahuatanr in Bihar. Before the application could be disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority Ram Autar Lal Jain died on 1 June, 1964. Thereafter, Kamal Kumar Jain, the son of Ram Autar Lal Jain made an application to Regional Transport Authority stating that the application filed by his deceased father might be treated to be one on behalf of himself and on behalf of his two minor brothers. It was also stated in the application that Ram Autar Lal Jain had died leaving his sons as heirs. On 4 August, 1964 another application was filed by Kamal Kumar Jain praying that the application filed by the deceased father might be treated as the application of a firm called M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain the appellant herein. It was stated there that the three sons and the widow of Ram Aitar Lal Jain carried on business in partnership under the name and style of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain. The minors were said to be admitted to the benefit of the partnership. On receipt of the application the matter was notified in the Bihar Gazette on 9 September, 1964 for the purpose of inviting objections, if any. No Objections were filed. On 24 July, 1965 the Transport, Authority passed an order granting a permit in favour of M/s. Ram Autar Lal Jain for the route.

3. The Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority found that the application for permit had been made by Ram Autar Lal Jain and that Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to grant permit in favour of the appellant. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Minister. The Minister upheld the view of the Appeal Board and dismissed the appeal.

4. The appellant in an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, Patna and of the Minister of Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The question which was raised before the High Court was whether the Appeal Board erred in holding that the firm was a different entity from the heirs of Ram Autar Lal Jain. It was said by the Appeal Board that the firm could not be equated with the legal representative of the deceased. The High Court held that on the 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 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 ca