Pending stage carriage permit applications may be continued by a successor in possession after the applicant's death, subject to authority's discretion.

Where an applicant for a stage carriage permit dies before the application is finally decided, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains no express rule requiring abatement, and the Code of Civil Procedure does not govern the proceeding. Because the permit application is tied to possession and operation of the vehicle, the Regional Transport Authority may adopt a reasonable procedure in the absence of statutory prohibition. It may, in its discretion, substitute the successor in possession and allow that person to prosecute the pending application, subject to relevant objections and competing claims. The Supreme Court held that the authority had power to permit the deceased applicant's successor in possession to continue the application, and the High Court's contrary view was ?

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the death of an applicant for a stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority has power to allow the person succeeding to the possession of the transport vehicles to continue and prosecute the pending application.

Analysis: The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 contains no express provision dealing with the death of an applicant during pendency of a permit application, and the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to such proceedings. The application for a permit is connected with the possession and operation of the vehicle, and if the applicant dies before final disposal, the successor in possession cannot make a fresh application in his own right after the expiry of the prescribed time. The statutory scheme, including the provisions governing applications, objections, appeals, revisions, and transfer of permits already granted, leaves room for the authority to adopt a reasonable procedure. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, the Regional Transport Authority may, in its discretion, substitute the successor in possession and permit prosecution of the pending application, subject to relevant considerations and objections by rival claimants.

Conclusion: The Regional Transport Authority had power to allow the appellant, as successor in possession, to prosecute the application filed by her deceased husband; the contrary view of the High Court was erroneous.

---