Any person, the effect of the 1994 amendment on s. 147 is unambiguous. Where earlier, the words 'any person' could be held not to include the owner of the goods or his authorised representative travelling in the goods vehicle, Parliament has now made it clear that such a construction is no longer possible. The scope of this rationale does not, however, extend to cover the class of cases where gratuitous passengers for whom no insurance policy was envisaged, and for whom no insurance premium was paid, employed the goods vehicle as a medium of conveyance, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 (5): AIR 2004 SC 1340. [Motor Vehicles Act, s. 147(1)(b) (as amended in 1994)]
The expression 'any person' can be restricted to those on the managerial or administrative staff only. One cannot arbitrarily cut down the amplitude of an expression used by the legislature, Central Bank of India v. Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 12 (23): (1960) 1 SCR 200. (Banking Regulation Act, 1949, s. 10)
The words 'any person' would include all revenue officers of the Government, Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 3830: (2004) 7 SCC 33 (59). [Gold (Control) Act 1968, s. 69(6)]
Any person, in view of changes in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vis-'-vis the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. third party, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.'v. Asha Rani, (2003) 2 SCC 223.
Any person, in section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 would not cover all persons who were travelling in goods carriage in any capacity, but would include owner of goods of his authorised representatives, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Phool Singh, AIR 2007 (DOC) 218 (P&H).
Any person, includes all revenue officers of the Government. Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja v. Union of India, (2007) 7 SCC 33. [Gold (Control) Act, 1968, ss. 64(b) and 105]
Any person, is wide enough to include all categories of persons and as that would throw open the door to innumerable objections resulting in a protected proceeding it was thought necessary to restrict the category of objectors, Praksah Chandra Sahu v. Managing Director, O.R.T. Co., AIR 1980 Ori 122.
Any person, appearing in section 132(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are significant and even a third party can make an application to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner giving reasons for his objection to the order and seeking appropriate relief in the matter, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bbubaneswar v. Parmeshwari Devi Sultana, (1998) 3 SCC 481.
The word any person in Order 21, Rule 97(1) (CPC) is used deliberately for widening the scope of power so that the executing court could adjudicate the claim made in any application. Thus by use of words 'any person' it includes all the persons resisting the delivering of possession, claiming right in the property, even those not bound by the decree, including tenants or other persons claiming right on their own, including a stranger, Shreenath v. Rajesh, (1998) 4 SCC 543.