1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.09.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.10678 of 2011 Dr.V.Swamenathan : Petitioner Vs. 1.The Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 2.The Regional Transport Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 3.K.R.Roadways (Firm), Representing by its Partner Dr.R.Vedaasalam : Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing respondents 1 and 2 herein to allow the transfer of stage carriage permit bus bearing Registration No.TN-49-M-3564 plying on the route Pattukottai to Pudukottai via Karambakudi and Alangudi from the name of the third respondent to in the name of the petitioner as per the joint application dated 15.06.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.D.R.Murugesan For Respondents 1&2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen Additional Government Pleader ORDER ****** It is the grievance of the petitioner that though a joint application dated 15.06.2011 along with the Solvency Certificate for Rs.5,00,000/- issued by the Tahsildar, Pattukottai, has been made to the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai, by the petitioner and the third respondent, who is none other than the father of the petitioner, with the endorsement of other two partners of K.R.Roadways (Firm) in the joint application, and sought for transfer of stage carriage permit, in respect of a bus bearing Registration No.TN-49- M-3564, in the name of the petitioner, the first respondent, instead of effecting transfer, has issued a notice for enquiry, pursuant to which, the petitioner and the third respondent have appeared on 14.07.2011 and that a preliminary enquiry has been conducted. 2. He further submitted that the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai, the first respondent ought not to have issued any notice, on the objection of one Mr.G.Gnanasekaran, Pattukottai, an ex-employee of the third respondent firm, who has raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Tanjore, claiming https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 backwages and reinstatement. According to the petitioner, the said objector being an employee, has no right to make any objections. 3. In addition to the above pleadings, inviting the attention of this Court to Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 213 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, Mr.D.R.Murugesan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a duty is cast on the first respondent to order for transfer of permit by rejecting the objection made by a third party, who is not connected with transfer of permit. 4. Considering the limited relief, Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen, learned Additional Government Pleader was put on notice. 5. Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. 6. Rule 213 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules states that if the Transport Authority is satisfied that the transfer of permits may properly be made, it shall call upon in writing the holder of the permit and the other party to forward within four months from the date of receipt of the order sanctioning the transfer, the permit and the certificate of registration of the vehicle with the particulars of the transfer of ownership of the vehicle stated thereon together with valid certificate of fitness and proof for payment of the current tax under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1974 (Tamil Nadu Act 13 of 1974). In the event of the parties concerned failing to produce the relevant records within the period of four months aforesaid, the Transport Authority shall revoke the sanction. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the objection of an employee, a third party, ought not to have entertained by the first respondent cannot be adverted to at this stage, for the reason that a notice dated 29.06.2011 had already been issued by the first respondent calling upon the applicant to appear for a preliminary enquiry and that the objection made by the above said person, for transfer of permit, if permissible under law, has to be considered by the authority, who has already issued the notice. 8. Inasmuch as the joint application has already been filed and that the same is stated to be pending for more than three months, even after conducting a preliminary enquiry, this Court is of the view that it is suffice to direct the Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai, the first respondent herein to pass orders on the joint application dated 15.06.2011, after considering as to whether the objection of the said Mr.G.Gnanasekaran is in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder, and whether he has any locus to submit any objection, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 9. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. 2. The Regional Transport Officer, Pudukottai District, Pudukottai. + 1 cc to The Special Government Pleader, SR No.32893 Order made in W.P.(MD).No.10678 of 2011 Dated:- 22.09.2011 SML RJ/26.9.11 3p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/