IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2011 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 4760 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.USHA, W/O.T.N.S.MOHAN, 'NARAYANA MANDIR' EAST VILLAGE, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD. 2. A.ABDUL HAKKIM, S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, 283(3/3810)3, SOUTH STREET, DUBAI HOUSE, PUDUNGARAM P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL SMT.AMBIKA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY PALAKKAD -1, REPRESNTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD - 1. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) No.4760 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 30.11.2010 IN ITEM NO.153. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4760 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is a stage carriage operator operating a stage carriage on the route Thekkinchira – Velanthavalam via Kollengode, Chittur on the strength of a regular permit. After the first petitioner transferred the said stage carriage to the second respondent, they jointly submitted an application for transferring the permit standing in the name of the first petitioner to the second petitioner. The Regional Transport Authority that met on 30.11.2010 allowed the application for transfer subject to clearance of Government dues and production of a No Objection Certificate from the financier, if required. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though the current records of the vehicle were produced and no amount is payable to the financier, acting on a complaint which was received after Ext.P1 order was passed, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has declined to make the endorsement regarding transfer on the original of the permit. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to implement Ext.P1 decision to transfer the regular permit standing in the name of the first petitioner. Relying on the decision of this Court in Poulose v. R.T.O. Palakkad (1992 (1) KLT 441), it is contended that once the Regional Transport W.P.(C) No.4760 of 2011 2 Authority allows the application for transfer of permit, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority cannot entertain objections from any quarter. 2. The learned Government Pleader submitted on instructions that a complaint had been received on 19.8.2010 from Sri.P.Sundaran, General Secretary, Palakkad District Motor & Autorickshaw Mazdoor Sanghan, Harikkara Street, Palakkad, wherein it was stated that the first respondent is liable to pay contribution to the Provident Fund and that there are also labour disputes. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that though the complaint was entered in the electronic register, due to over sight, it was not brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority before it took the decision on 30.11.2011, that notice of hearing was issued to the objector on 29.12.2010 and when the objector appeared for the hearing on 7.1.2011, he stated that the permit should not be transferred till the issue is discussed in the presence of the District Labour Officer. 3. Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal, the learned counsel W.P.(C) No.4760 of 2011 3 appearing for the petitioners submitted that if any amount is due from the first petitioner towards the provident fund contribution, the petitioners will take steps to pay the same and that any complaint regarding denial of employment can be separately dealt with. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in Poulose v. R.T.O. Palakkad (supra), the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority cannot entertain objections after the application for transfer of permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority or re-open the decision already taken by the Regional Transport Authority. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on both sides. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Poulose v. R.T.O. Palakkad (supra), after an elaborate analysis of the case law on the point and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder held that the after a decision is taken by the Regional Transport Authority to allow the application for transfer of the permit, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority who is the executive authority is not bound to W.P.(C) No.4760 of 2011 4 afford an opportunity of personal hearing to any objector. It was held that a concluded decision regarding the transfer of permit cannot be re-opened by the Secretary by giving the objectors an opportunity of being heard and that if the objector has any greivance, he has to seek his remedies in the appropriate forum. In the light of the said decision to which the Regional Transport Officer, Palakkad is himself a party, I am of the opinion that the second respondent cannot decline to make the necessary endorsements on the original of the permit on the ground that after Ext.P1 decision was taken, the objection raised by Sri.P.Sundaran came to his notice and thereupon he was put on notice and heard. As regards the arrears of contribution to the provident fund, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners will take steps to clear the same, should dispel any apprehension which the objector has regarding that aspect of the matter. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to implement Ext.P1 decision by making the necessary endorsements on the original of the permit within two W.P.(C) No.4760 of 2011 5 weeks from today, on the petitioners complying with the requirements in Ext.P1 and producing a certificate from the concerned provident fund officer that no arrears of contribution in respect of the stage carriage is due from the first petitioner. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.