IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23645 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ PHILOMINA JOY, KANNIPARAMBIL HOUSE, L.M.PAILY CROSS ROAD, VYTTILA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, (REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER), ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23645/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is the wife of late K.P.Joy, permit holder of stage carriage No.KL-07 AM 6057, having a regular permit on the route Vyttila-Vyttila. Sri. Joy expired on 20.4.2008, leaving behind the petitioner, his wife, two sons and one daughter. According to the petitioner, immediately on the death of Joy, necessary intimation as contemplated under Proviso to Section 82 and Rule 56 of the Central Rules was given to the respondent. Thereafter, she submitted Ext.P4 for transfer of the permit in her favour. In terms of Section 82(2) of the Act, along with Ext.P4, she produced Ext.P1 death certificate, Ext.P2 relationship certificate issued by the WP(c).No.23645/2008 2 Village Officer indicating the relationship of the petitioner and the children with the deceased and also Ext.P3, a consent letter issued by her children, seeking transfer of permit in her favour. On receipt of Ext.P4 along with Exts.P1 to P3, the respondents issued Ext.P5, directing the petitioner to produce heirship certificate from the Tahsildar and NOC from the financier for considering the application. It is thereupon that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P5. 3. The contention that is raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 56(2) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, the petitioner having produced the documents prescribed therein, she cannot be called upon to produce heirship certificate from the Tahsildar for considering the request for transfer of the permit. On a reading of the provisions contained in the Rule referred to above and on perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner and referred to earlier, I am inclined to WP(c).No.23645/2008 3 agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. In addition to this, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fully supported by Exts.P6 and P7 judgments rendered by this court in identical circumstances, referring to Rule 56(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Therefore, for these reasons, I dispose of this writ petitioner, quashing Ext.P5 and directing that the application made by the petitioner shall be considered on merits and orders thereon shall be passed by the respondents, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.23645/2008 4