AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Ramanathan, J.—The Petitioner is a private bus operator plying stage carriage in the route Thirumangalam Police Station to Usilampatti Bus Stand via Santhangudi, Pannigundu, Nakkalakottai, Thummagundu, Sindhupatti and T. Vilakku and possesses a permit in respect of a bus bearing Registration No. TN 58 J 1003. Earlier the stage carriage permit for the above route was owned by one M. Perumal and the permit was granted to run the bus from Chinnakattalai to Nakkalakottai. In the year 1996, the said M Perumal applied for variation of permit conditions from Thirumangalam Police Station to Usilampatti Bus Stand via Santhangui, Pannigundu, Nakkalakottai, Thummagundu, Sindhupatti and T. Vilakku. The first Respondent granted the variation of permit. Thereafter, by virtue of Act 19/96, the Government cancelled all the variations granted by the various Regional Transport Authorities and that was challenged before the Principal seat at Madras and all the writ petitions were allowed directing the Government to implement the variations granted by the Regional Transport Authorities. The said M Perumal was also permitted to run the bus through the route varied by the authorities and he applied for further variation on 12.11.2005, to extend the route from Thirumangalam Police Station to Thirumangalam Bus Stand on the ground of obviating the difficulties of the public to change the bus. That application was rejected on 06-12-2005 and aggrieved by the same, the said M. Perumal filed the Appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. During the pendency of the appeal, the permit was transferred to the Petitioner by the proceeding of the Second Respondent dated 22-08-2007. The vehicle bearing Registration No. 49 E 7007 was also replaced by vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 58 J 1003. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal by order in MVA No. 775/2005 allowed the appeal on 06-10-2007 and by virtue of order, the variation of condition of the permit sought for by the original holder M. Perumal was granted and the Respondents were directed to issue the permit with such variation within two weeks.
Thereafter, on the basis of transfer of permit, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents to implement the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal to permit the vehicle from Thirumangalam Police Station to Thirumangalam Bus Stand and on the basis of the opinion of the learned Additional Government Pleader, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, the application of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner was not a party to the Appeal No. MVA 775/2005 and therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the appeal order. This order of the first Respondent dated 26-11-2009 is challenged in this writ petition.
Mr. S.C. Herold Singh, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondents and he submitted that as the Petitioner was not a party to the appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, he is not entitled to the benefit of the order and therefore, the order of the first Respondent is correct and the writ petition has to be dismissed.
According to me, the order of the first Respondent cannot be sustained in law. It is admitted that the Petitioner purchased the vehicle during the pendency of the appeal arid therefore, he is a person bound by the result of the appeal. As per Section 72(2)(xxii) of Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority has got power to vary the permit or attach to the permit further conditions and Section 80 deals with the Procedure in applying for and granting permits. Further, u/s 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, a permit holder is entitled to transfer the permit with the approval of the authority and in this case, by the proceedings of the second Respondent dated 22-08-2007, the permit granted in respect of vehicle No. TN 49 E 7007 was allowed to be replaced by another vehicle TN 58 J 1003 with effect from 21-03-2007 subject to the list of conditions already attached to the permit and by similar proceedings dated 22-08-2007 by the second Respondent in P.C. No. 03/Ms/2006, the permit was transferred from the earlier owner M. Perumal to the Petitioner B. Sivasubramanian. Further by proceedings dated 02-03-2006 of the first Respondent the permit is valid upto 21-03-2011. Therefore, it is seen from the second Respondent''s proceedings that the Petitioner is the valid owner of the permit and transfer of permit in the name of the Petitioner was also approved by the second Respondent. It is also admitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the transfer had taken place and therefore the question that arises for consideration is whether the transferee is entitled to the benefit of the appeal order when he was not a party to the said appeal in MVA 775/2005. In this connection we will have to see the provision of Order 22 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure. Order 22 Rule 10 is as follows:
Order 22 Rule 10: Procedure in case of assignment before final order in suit-(l) In other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, be leave of the Court, be continued, by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved.
(2)The attachment of a decree pending an appeal therefrom shall be de deemed to be an interest entitling the person who procured such attachment to the benefit of Sub-rule (l).
It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment Dhurandhar Prasad Singh Vs. Jai Prakash University and Others, as follows:
Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is based on the principle that the trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during its pendency but such a suit may be continued with the leave of the court by or against the person upon whom such interest has devolved. But, if no such step is taken, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom the interest has devolved will be bound by and can have the benefit of the decree, as the case may be, unless it is shown in a properly constituted proceeding that the original party being no longer interested in the proceeding did not vigorously prosecute or colluded with the adversary resulting in decision adverse to the party upon whom the interest had devolved....
Under Rule 10 Order 22 of the Code, when there has been a devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the court, be continued by or against persons upon whom-such interest has devolved and this entitles the person who has acquired an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation by an assignment or creation or devolution of interest pendente lite or suitor or any other person interested, to apply to the court for leave to continue the suit. But it does not follow that it. is obligatory upon them to do so.
Therefore, as per the aforesaid judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, even in the absence of the purchaser pendente lite not being made a party to the suit, the suit may be continued with the original party and the person upon whom interest is devolved is bound by the decree and he can claim the benefit of the decree. In this case, as stated supra, the permit was transferred in the name of the Petitioner by the Respondents and therefore, the Petitioner even though was not a party to the Appeal, is bound by the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, he can also get the benefit of the order. Therefore, the order of the first Respondent that the transferor M. Perumal has no locus standi in prosecuting the appeal as already he transferred the permit during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, the Petitioner cannot ask for implementation of the order, is not legally correct. A transferee pendente lite is entitled to the benefit of the order passed and in this case, admittedly the permit was transferred to the second Respondent during the pendency of the appeal. Further, permit is not the personal right of the owner and it is just like other property which can be transferred under law. The Motor Vehicles Act also permits the transfer of permits and therefore, when a person lawfully transfers the permits to another person and the transfer is also approved by the authorities, the transferee of the permit is entitled to all the benefits attached to the permit and in this case, the appeal filed by the earlier owner of the permit was allowed and variation was granted and hence, the writ Petitioner is also entitled to the benefit of the appellate order. Hence, the order of the first Respondent is not in accordance with under law and it is set aside and the first Respondent is directed to grant variation in respect of the permit granted to the Petitioner as per the order of the first Respondent in MTV 775/2005 dated 06-10-2007.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P(MD) No. l of 2010 is closed.