Permit whether can be issued to a minor.

Two important questions arise for consideration in this civil revision petition. They are

(1) whether a minor can be holder of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act and (2) whether during the lifetime of the father, the mother can represent a minor The facts in this revision lie in a narrow compass. The revision petitioner applied for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Kurinjipadi to Ponnanthittu via, Adur Agaram, Bothavacheri, Bhuvanagiri, Chidambaram and Killai. The length of the route is 45.3 kilometres, which is in motor parlance called a minimum route. A proposal was published under section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act inviting applications. In response to this there were 5 applicants. The petitioner was applicant No. 1 while the respondent was applicant No. 5. The Regional Transport Authority at the hearing dated 15th February, 1978, granted the permit in favour of the petitioner who secured 10 marks since the respondent obtained only 8 marks. Aggrieved by this grant, the matter was taken up in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal reversed the orders of the Regional Transport Authority mainly on two grounds, they being that the award of 8 marks in favour of the respondent was wrong and it should be increased to 10 marks. On this basis, it proceeded to compare the claims of the revision petitioner as well as the claims of the respondent. It was of the view that the revision petitioner did not have his residence at Chidambaram while it was not so in the case of the respondent. The transfer alleged against the respondent was quite legal and the same would not bar the grant of permit. Ultimately it concluded in the following words; “I find that the lower authority erred in granting the permit to the respondent who is only a minor prosecuting his studies in the college at Chidambaram with permanent residence at Tirukoilur and that the grant of the permit to him will not be in the interests of travelling public”. It is to revise this

order, the present civil revision has been preferred.

2. Mr. O. Ramaswami, learned counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to the legislative practice under the Motor Vehicles Act by which the age limit is sought to be prescribed. For instance, section 21-C (1) of the Act which deals with the grant of conductor’s licence has specified the age. While section 42 speaks of the operation of the transport vehicle on a public road, it has not prescribed any age limit. Permit is property is a settled proposition as seen from the decision in Viswanathan Pillai v. Shanmugam1, and the term ‘owner’ occurring in section 2 (19) has been defined to include a minor as well. In the case of issue of a permit, no acceptance of the conditions is necessary for application for permit. According to it also, if the applicant is a minor; the guardian can very well represent him. In Paterson’s Licensing Act, infancy per se has not been made a disqualification (page 782). Therefore, wherever the conditions stated under the permit are sought to be enforced it can be done only as against the permit and not against the person. In so far as, section 2 (19) includes a minor as well for the purpose of ownership, there cannot be any legal objection.

3. The learned Advocate-General in opposition states that section 11 of the Contract Act talks of the capacity of a minor to contract. Guardian steps in on behalf of the minor. The guardian can act only in two cases, either on the ground of legal necessity or for the benefit of the minor; in the case of trading contracts like this, it is impossible to represent because they have been held to be not beneficial to the minor [(1937.) 3 All

England Reports Page 13] For instance, contract to purchase a lorry on a hire purchase system was held to be not a necessity. Under section 47 (1) (c), the interest of the public will have to be taken note of. In any event it is submitted that in the instant case the father alone should have applied for the per