IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2010 / 25TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15553 of 2010(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.A.GRACY, W/O.LATE KOCHUMATHEW, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, NAMBEEHIKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR, SMT.G.CHITRA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 15553 OF 2010 T ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is the wife of one Kochumathew who is no more. Late Kochumathew had two regular permits with respect to stage carriages bearing registration Nos: KL-08/AE 6580 and KL- 46/A 9725 conducting services on the route Kunnamkulam- Chavakkad. Late Kochumathew left behind the petitioner who is his wife and their daughter and son. After the death of the permit holder, the petitioner succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. Therefore she has duly intimated the authority by Ext.P2 of the death of late Kochumathew as well as the fact that the petitioner had succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. 2. According to the petitioner, she has produced the death certificate, certificate issued by the Village Officer showing that the petitioner as well as her two children are the only legal heirs of the deceased. On the basis of the said documents the authorities have issued a temporary permit under Section 87(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is Ext.P4. The petitioner has also submitted an application for transfer of the permit to her name accompanied by a declaration of the petitioner's daughter as well as WPC 15553/2010 2 her son duly attested by a notary public giving consent for the transfer of the permit and the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. However, the application submitted by the petitioner has not been considered for the reason that the petitioner has not produced a legal heirship certificate, which is insisted upon by the second respondent. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision reported in Bhagyalakshmy v. R.T.A., Palakkad {2010(2) KLT 431} the second respondent is bound to consider the petitioner's application for transfer without insisting on the production of a legal heirship certificate. Therefore, the petitioner prays for the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of her application for transfer of permit and vehicle. 4. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court in the decision referred to above, it is not necessary that a legal heirship certificate should be produced for the purpose of considering an application for transfer of a permit and vehicle following the death of the original permit holder. Therefore, the insistance on production of a legal heirship certificate is not justified. It is for the second respondent to consider the application of the petitioner on WPC 15553/2010 3 the basis of the other documents produced and to decide whether the petitioner has proved her right to obtain the transfer that is sought for. 5. In view of the above this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for the transfer of the permit as well as the vehicle to her name in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, without insisting on the production of a legal heirship certificate. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 15553/2010 4