B.N. Sapru, J.
1. There is a route known as Faizabad-Amghat road. One D. D. Pramanik held a permit No. 231 for a bus on that route and the permit was valid upto 26-2-1971. On 13-6-1968 a notification was issued under Section 68(D)(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the notification was published on 8-5-1968. In the meanwhile on 21-6-1968 D. D. Pramanik died and on 20-7-1968 an application was made by Ram Ajore Jaiswal, the petitioner, under Section 61(2) of the Act for transfer of the permit. His case being that he was in possession of the vehicle covered by permit No. 231.
2. Against the publication of the scheme prepared under Section 68(D)(3) of the Act a Writ Petition No. 473 of 1968 was filed by D.D. Pramanik and others and on 19-8-1966 an interim order was made as a result of which the operators were unable to run their buses. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 2-9-1968. Consequently upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the permits were cancelled on 19-9-1968. The permit in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It is necessary to mention here that after the death of D. D. Pramanik there was dispute between Ram Ajore Jaiswal, the petitioner, and the widow of D. D. Pramanik and a suit was filed. The suit was ultimately compromised on 2.1-1-1970 and the right of the petitioner was recognised by the widow of D. D. Pramanik.
3. On 4-4-1977 the permit was transferred under Section 61(3) of the Act in the name of the petitioner and on the same date he was given a compensatory permit on Chadausi Rajghat route.
4. The Regional Transport Authority held that Ram Ajore Jaiswal was entitled to receive a. compensatory permit as compensation in view of the cancellation of permit to which he was entitled due to notification of Faizabad Amghat route.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the Regional Transport Authority, the respondent No. 3, Kundan Lal Arora who was an existing operator on Chandausi Rajghat route filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 2-4-1979 allowed the revision and the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a compensatory permit to the petitioner on Chandausi Rajghat route was quashed.
6. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition and has prayed for quashing of the above mentioned judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. U. P., Lucknow in the case of Kundan Lal Arora v. Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad, and Ram Ajore Jaiswal.
7. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that under the provisions of Section 68(G)(1) compensation is payable only to a holder of an existing permit consequent upon the cancel Union of permit under Section 68(F)(a) as the route has become nationalised. It held that on 19-9-1968 Ram Ajore was not the holder of permit and as such he could not have compensation under the provisions of Section 68(G)(2). The Tribunal went on to hold that the application of the petitioner under Section 61(1) of the Act for transfer of the permit in his name consequent upon the death of D. D. Pramanik was pending on 19-9-1968.
8. Section 61(1) of the Act reads as under:
'61(1) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit may, for a period of three months use the permit as if it had been granted to himself:
Provided that such person has, within thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit; Provided further that no permit shall be so used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in (he hands of the deceased holder'
9. Sub-section (2) of the Section 61 of the Act provides that the transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit.
10. On 20-7-1968, i.e. within the period stipulated in Section 61(2) of the Act, Ram Ajore Jaiswal had applied for transfer of the permit in his name. The Authority finally transferred the permit in favour of the petitioner on 5-4-1977.
11. The crucial question for consideration in this case is as to what consequences will flow consequent upon the order of transfer dated 5-4-1977 in favour of the petitioner.
12. Sri D. P. Naithani has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Autar Lal v. Minister of Transport, AIR 19774 SC 326. The relevant facts of the case are that an application was made for permit by one Ram Autar Lal Jain before the Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority for grant of a stage carriage permit at a particular route. The application was made within the time but before the application could be considered. Ram Autar died leaving some legal representatives, Ram Autar's heir wanted to prosecute the application filed by Ram Autar Lal Jain.
13. The Supreme Court held that-
'We are inclined to think that in the case of death of the applicant before the final disposal of his application for the grant of a permit in respect of his vehicles 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. 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.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred me to a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Brij Bahadur Lal v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1973 All 419. The facts of the case are that Brij Bahadur Lal held a regular stage carriage permit on Panari Sitapur route which was to expire on 28-5-1970. Before that date, however, a scheme was published by the State Transport Undertaking under Section 58-C of the Motor Vehicles Act for nationalisation of the route. The appellant applied for renewal of the permit on 17-11-1969 and the Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated 24-4-1970 renewed the permit for three years with effect from 29-5-1970. On the scheme being so published the Regional Transport Authority cancelled the appellant's permit on 12-9-1970 and subsequently granted a compensatory permit. The Division Bench observed that
'Sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F lays down that save as otherwise provided under Sub-section (1-A) or Sub-section (1C) no permit shall be granted or renewed during the period intervening between the date of publication under Section 68-C of any scheme and the date of publication of the approved or modified scheme, in favour of any person for any class of road transport.'
15. The proviso to that section however provided the renewal of a permit for a limited period. The same proviso contained a specific provision that permit shall ceased to be effective on the publication of the scheme under Sub-section (3) of the Section 68-D. The Bench observed that-
'Section 68-G Sub-clause (1) provides for the grant of compensation to the holder of an existing permit which has been cancelled or whose terms have been modified in the exercise of powers conferred by Clause (b) or Clause (c) of Sub-setion (2) of Section 68-F.'
16. It held, however, that since the renewed permit expired on the publication of the Scheme, therefore, no cancellation of the permit after the publication of the scheme arose and secondly no question for compensation arose and, therefore, no compensatory permit can be granted.
17. This case though established the proposition that only existing permit-holder can get a compensation, does not really determine the question involved in the present case.
18. Sub-section (2) of Section 61 has been referred to above, it enables the transport authority to transfer a permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit. It provides no limitation of time for making an order of transfer. The order of transfer was, as mentioned above, made on 5-4-1977 and Section 68-F authorises the transport authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, to do various acts including the power to cancel in order to give effect to an approved scheme. The power of the transport authority contained in Section 61(2) is independent of the power vested in the transport authority or the Regional Transport Authority under Section 68-F(2) of the Act. Consequently it was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority to make the order dated 5-4-1977 transferring the permit which was held by D. D. Pramanik in favour of the petitioner.
19. Once the permit was transferred, the natural consequence was that the petitioner's permit stood cancelled as the route was nationalised and the order of cancellation was in fact made. The permit transferred in favour of the petitioner became an existing permit which was cancelled and as such the petitioner became entitled to receive a permit under Section 68(G)(1) of the Act or to receive a compensatory permit under Section 68(G)(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, was in error in allowing the revision.
20. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 2-4-1979 (Annexure 6 to the petition) of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is quashed that of the Regional Transport Authority passed in its meeting held on 4/5-4-1977 is restored. The parties will bear their own costs.