IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 2255 of 2007(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- MUSTAQ.S.M., S/O.LATE SHEIK NURUDHIN BABU, SHEIK MANZIL, PALLAM ROAD, KASARAGODE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.2255/2007 R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE R.T.O., KASARAGODE DTD. 17/01/2005. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 24/02/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, KASARAGODE VIDE REF.C2.2992/05 DTD. 8/07/2005. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 27/03/2006 IN ITEM NO.13. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN MVAA NO.210/06 DTD. 16/12/2006. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ======================= WP(C).No. 2255 of 2007-R. ======================= Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the rejection of the application for transfer of permit by the State Transport Authority, which was upheld by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. The petitioner's father was holding an interstate permit on the route Badiadka Junction – Mangalore. He expired on 7.1.2005. As per Ext.P1 the mother of the petitioner intimated the Regional Transport Officer about the death of her husband. Ext.P1 is dated 17.1.2005. By Ext.P2 the Secretary, State Transport Authority was also intimated about the death of her husband. Ext.P3 is the legal heirship certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kasargode. This is dated 8.7.2005. When the matter was considered by the State Transport Authority the application for transfer was rejected on the ground that the explanation for the WP(C).No. 2255 of 2007-R. -: 2 delay furnished by the applicant is not convincing. The appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was also not successful. 3. A reading of Ext.P5 would show that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal observed that the date of application of the legal heirship certificate is not at all stated by the petitioner and therefore the period from 7.4.2005 to 8.7.2005 cannot be said to be explained. 4. Ext.P3 is the legal heirship certificate. As far as the details of the legal heirs are concerned, it is evident from Ext.P3 that the same has been published in the Gazette No.16 dated 19.4.2005. Therefore it is clear that the application will be prior to the said date. As far as the delay from 24.7.2005 is concerned, it has been explained that due to various financial as well as family problems the application could be submitted only on 24.8.2005. Therefore the petitioner has properly explained the delay. 5. Going by the provisions of Sec.82(3), it is provided that the Transport Authority may entertain an application made after WP(C).No. 2255 of 2007-R. -: 3 the expiry of the original period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. As far as the question of condoning the delay is concerned, even though it is depended upon the satisfaction of the authority, in fact a liberal view ought to have taken in the facts and circumstances of the case. At any rate, it cannot be said that there was contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner or his mother. For all these reasons I find that the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The delay ought to have been condoned. Therefore Exts.P4 and P5 are quashed. The first respondent is directed to reconsider the application for transfer of permit and pass appropriate orders in the light of the findings rendered above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. kvs/-