IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23914 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. MOHANADASAN, CHAKKINGALTHODI HOUSE, P.O.AMAYUR, PATTAMBI. 2. PRASANNAKUMARI, W/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, 76, ANUGRAHA, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. *ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED: R3. SRI.SHIJU B.C., S/O.CHELLAPPAN, BISHI NIVAS, AMAYUR, OTTAPALAM. (*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 15/09/2008 IN I.A.NO.11566/08) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA FOR R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23914/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SUIT O.S.NO.206/2007 DTD. 4/12/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 10/04/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 25/06/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: EXT.R3(A): COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DTD. 4/08/2008 IN I.A.NO.2607/2007 & 1257/2008 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.206/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23914 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT The first petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage and permit holder on the route Valamcherry- Pallippuram. He sought for transfer of the vehicle along with the permit issued to him to the second petitioner and the petitioners have filed a joint application before the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad. 2. In the meanwhile, the additional 3rd respondent, who claims to have entered into an agreement with the first petitioner for the sale of the said vehicle, has instituted a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam allegedly raising a money claim against the first petitioner. It seems that the civil court has passed an order of injunction, restraining the transfer of the vehicle. 3. Taking note of the order of injunction, the Regional Transport Authority has proceeded to adjourn the case. Going by Ext.P3, the Regional Transport Authority has deferred consideration of the application till the disposal of the civil suit pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam. W.P.(C).NO.23914/08 :: 2 :: 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no order of injunction, on the date on which Ext.P3 was passed. The petitioners challenge Ext.P3 and seek an appropriate direction to the Regional Transport Authority to proceed with the consideration of the joint application for transfer of the vehicle along with the permit. 5. The additional 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit and produced Ext.R3(a) order. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent affirming that the decision on the joint application can be taken only after the disposal of O.S.No.206/07 pending before the Munsiff's Court, Ottapalam. 6. I heard Mr.Dinesh Menon learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and Mr.G.Prabhakaran on behalf of the additional 3rd respondent. 7. It is obviously possible for the owner to transfer a vehicle, which is only a movable property. But transfer of a permit is a statutory function to be discharged by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act. W.P.(C).NO.23914/08 :: 3 :: 8. Learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent submits that the vehicle can be run only with the permit. If that be so, de hors the transfer of the vehicle, the same is not permissible. 9. The transfer of the permit can be sought for either by the transferee or by the transferor only in relation to a vehicle and if the transfer of the permit is allowed and the transfer of the vehicle is injuncted, then the only remedy available to the parties is to approach the Regional Transport Authority with another vehicle by way of replacement. I have adverted to the same only to show that a consideration of the application for transfer of the permit need not be kept in abeyance merely because there is an order of injunction restraining the transfer of the vehicle as such. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to proceed to consider the joint application submitted by the petitioners in relation to the permit on the route Valamcherry-Pallippuram. The additional 3rd respondent shall also be heard in this regard before a decision is taken. It is made clear that any action taken by W.P.(C).NO.23914/08 :: 4 :: the 1st respondent, in the matter of dealing with the application for transfer of the permit shall not result in contravention of the order of injunction passed by the competent civil court. Such orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//