... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.475 of 2008 Lata Jaiwant Naik, House No.5/36, Donwada, Saligao, Bardez-Goa. ... Petitioner v e r s u s 1. Regional Transport Authority Mapusa, represented by its Member Secretary, Office of the Assistant Director of Transport, Mapusa, Goa. 2. Janaki Kerkar, r/o Muddowaddo, Saligao, Bardez-Goa. 3. Goa State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Panaji, Goa. ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Petitioner. ... 2 ... CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. DATE : 16th October, 2008. ORDER: By this petition, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 16.06.2008 passed by the Goa State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Panaji ('The STAT' for short) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.02.2007 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, North Goa, Panaji, by which, the application for transfer of permit in favour of the petitioner has been refused. 2. One Janaki Kerkar, owner of bus bearing No.GA-01-V-6678 and holder of State carriage permit entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 4.11.2004. The parties executed a declaration cum sale letter by which the bus alongwith the ... 3 ... permit/route was sold for a consideration of Rs.4,50,000/-. On the same day, the petitioner filed an application before the Regional Transport Authority, for transfer of the permit in her name, the same was rejected. Against rejection, the petitioner preferred appeal to The STAT. The STAT remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Authority after recording the statement of the petitioner as well as Janaki Kerkar and considering the declaration cum sale letter dated 4.11.2004 passed an order dated 08.02.2007 rejecting the transfer on the ground that the same was in violation of Rule 92 of the Motor Vehicle Rules (The Rules for short). Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under the Act which has been dismissed by the STAT by the impugned order dated 16.06.2008. ... 4 ... 4. Mr. Coutinho, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the authorities below have erred in law in holding that there was a transfer of the permit by virtue of the declaration and sale letter dated 04.11.2004 and consequently there was a breach of Rule 92 of the Act. According to Mr. Coutinho by the said declaration only the vehicle was transferred and there was no transfer of permit and as such there was no breach of Rule 92. He further submitted that both the authorities have not considered the report of the Chartered Engineer which discloses that on the relevant date, the value of the bus was Rs.5,00,000/- and as such there could not have been transfer of the permit on 04.11.2004. In support of his submissions, Mr. Coutinho has relied upon the judgment in Khawaz Bux v. Mirza Mohammad Ismail reported in AIR 1984 Allahabad 83. He further submitted that the Regional Transport ... 5 ... Authority as well as The STAT have exercised jurisdiction illegally and therefore, are liable to be set aside. 5. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Coutinho and having perused the documents, I find no merit in the petition. Both the authorities below, upon appreciation of the materials placed before the first Authority i.e. Regional Transport Authority have gone to the conclusion that by declaration dated 04.11.2004, Janaki Kerkar not only transferred the vehicle but also transferred the permit in respect of the vehicle. This finding rendered by both the authorities below cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner. ... 6 ... 6. In my considered opinion, both the authorities below have correctly arrived at a finding that Rule 92 is clearly attracted. No fault can be found with the orders passed by both the authorities below. Hence no interference is called for. Hence the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.