PARESH CHANDRA DEY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and order passed by S. C. Ghose, J., dated 7th March, 1969 in Civil Rule Case No. 5522(W) of 1968. It appears that one Sailesh Nath Bishi, since deceased, was the owner of a Taxi Cab bearing registration No. WBT-1386. The said deceased had a permit issued to him by the appropriate Transport Authority. On the 7th January, 1962 the said Sailesh Nath Bishi died leaving all movable and immovable properties in favour of one Paresh Chandra Dey including the Taxi Cab No. WBT-1386. On the 24th January, 1962 Paresh Chandra Dey applied for probate of the said Will. On the 6th of February, 1962, Paresh Chandra Dey wrote a letter to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta. The said letter has been set out in the affidavit in opposition of Debdas Chakravarti, filed on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority and it appears at page 55 of the Paper Book. In the said letter after setting out the fact of the death of Sailesh Nath Bishi and about the Will, Paresh Chandra Dey had stated that he had applied for the probate of the Will before the District Judge, Alipore. Thereafter the said letter concluded, "I was also nominated by the deceased and the ownership may kindly be transferred in my name." On the 3rd of April 1962 Paresh Chandra Dey was appointed Administrator Pendente lite, of the estate and effects of the deceased. On the 26th of April, 1962 the said Paresh Chandra Dey, hereinafter, referred to as the petitioner, informed the Regional Transport Authority about the said appointment. It appears that on the 29th of January, 1963 an application pursuant to the leave of the probate Court was made for replacement of the Taxi cab and on the 29th of January, 1963 the Regional Transport Authority granted the application for replacement of the Taxi and a new Fiat Car was purchased by the petitioner for Rs. 13,928/-. On the 24th of May, 1963 the Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit in the name of the petitioner as Administrator pendente lite to the estate and effects of the deceased Sailesh Nath Bishi. The said permit was due to expire on the 24th of May, 1968. On the 11th September, 1964 the petitioner obtained probate of the aforesaid Will. On the 4th of May, 1967 the petitioner moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained a Rule being Civil Rule No. 816(W) of 1967. There was an interim order of injunction issued by the learned Judge. On the 29th March. 1968, the petitioner applied for renewal of permit. On the 7th of May, 1968 the petitioner was informed by the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority that the application for renewal of permit has been rejected in view of the fact that the said application was not made by the permit holder Sailesh Nath Bishi. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner again moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and Civil Rule No. 5522 (w) of 1968 was issued and interim order of injunction was also granted by the learned Judge. On the 26th July, 1968 the Regional Transport Authority made an application for vacating the interim order of injunction. Thereupon S. C. Ghose. J. on 4th of September, 1968 made the following order:--

(2.) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction mentioned in the aforesaid order, the petitioner applied for transfer of permit on the 23rd of September, 1968. On the 11th of October, 1968 the petitioner was informed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority that the application for permit has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the 9th of October, 1968 because the application had, not been filed as enjoined by the relevant statutory provision within 90 days of the death of the permit-holder and as the same had not been signed jointly by the transferor and the transferee. Civil Rules No. 816(w) of 1967 and 5522(w) of 1968 both came up for hearing before S. C. Ghose, J., who by a judgment, delivered on the 7th of March, 1968 discharged both the said Rules.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the order and judgment made in Civil Rule No. 5522(w) of 1968 the petitioner preferred this appeal before this Court. The learned Judge has referred to Section 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which provides as follows:--