IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 30985 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.BHARATHAN, S/O. KESAVAN, KOLETH HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM SRI.URSULA FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.C.AJIKUMAR, S/O. K.K.CHELLAPPAN, KOLETH HOUSE, ARPOOKKARA, VILLOONNI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.C.ARUN PRASANTH FOR R2 SRI.ANOOP MATHEW ABRAHAM FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 30985/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION. P2. COPY OF THE PERMIT. P3. COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 30985 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the brother of a stage carriage operator who is no more. Prior to the death of his brother, the petitioner's brother transferred the ownership of the stage carriage to the petitioner. The petitioner and his brother, while he was alive, filed Ext.P1 joint application, after remitting the transfer fee, for effecting the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. While that petition was pending, on 21.9.2008 the brother of the petitioner died. The 2nd respondent, who is stated to be the legal heir of the petitioner's brother, has already consented to the transfer of the ownership. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that the application for transfer of ownership is not being considered by the 1st respondent. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent to the effect that he has no objection in transferring the ownership of the vehicle in question to the petitioner. Admittedly Ext.P1 petition for transfer was filed while the transferee was alive. I am of opinion that because of the delay on the part of the 1st respondent in considering Ext.P1 application, the petitioner should not be made to suffer, only because of the transferrer died in the meanwhile. Even otherwise, now 2 that the 2nd respondent who is stated to be the legal heir, does not have any objection, I do not find any reason for the 1st respondent to further delay consideration of Ext.P1 application in accordance with law. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge