IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16718 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- REKESH, S/O.LATE T.M.BHASKARAN, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE, PEECHI, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR – 680 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR – 680 001. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. S. ABDUL SALAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16718/2011-L: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF KL-8 AQ 596. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF KL-8 AG 7276. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE R.C. BOOK OF KL-8 AQ 8944. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DT. 23/07/2010. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 9/2010 ALONGWITH FORM 31 APPLICATIONS. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DECLARATION DTD. 09/2010. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE N O C DTD. 10/01/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16718 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the son of late T.M.Bhaskaran who owned two Excavators bearing registration Nos.KL-8 AQ 596 and KL-8 AG 7276 and a motor car bearing registration No.KL-8 AQ 8944. The petitioner's father passed away on 22.12.2009. The petitioner along with his mother and sister thereafter submitted Ext.P5 application before the second respondent requesting him to transfer the ownership of the aforesaid vehicles to the petitioner. Along with that application, Ext.P6 declaration signed by the petitioner's mother and sister, Ext.P7 family membership certificate issued by the Village Officer, Peechi Village to the effect that the family members of Late.T.M.Bhaskaran are the petitioner, his mother and the sister and Ext.P8 No Objection Certificate issued by the Branch Manager of the South Malabar Gramin Bank were produced. This writ petition is filed contending that the second respondent declined to act on Ext.P5 application on the ground that the petitioner has not produced a legal heirship certificate. Relying on the decision of this Court in Bhagyalakshmy v. R.T.A., Palakkad (2010 (2) KLT 431) it is contended that as the rules does not stipulate the production of any W.P.(C) No.16718 of 2011 2 particular document, it is enough if an acceptable document like a family membership certificate is produced before the registering authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 application without insisting on production of a legal heirship certificate. 2. A learned single Judge of this Court considered an identical situation and held in Bhagyalakshmy v. R.T.A., Palakkad (supra) as follows:- “7. Since the Rule does not stipulate the production of any particular document to prove the claim of the applicant, it is sufficient that he produces an acceptable document to prove his entitlement for such transfer. The document may be the Legal Heirship Certificate, a Relationship Certificate issued by the Village Officer or a Succession Certificate, a will or a partnership deed or some other document that would show that he had succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. If there are more legal heirs to the deceased than one, or more persons who are equally entitled to such transfer, the consent of the others would also be necessary. Since the proceedings for transferring the ownership of a vehicle involves the transfer of a movable property of substantial value, the power has to be exercised by the authority with proper application of mind, after satisfying itself of the authenticity of the documents produced. The said decision is a quasi judicial one. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the registering authority cannot insist on the production of any other document that is not stipulated under W.P.(C) No.16718 of 2011 3 sub-r.(2) of R.56 cannot be accepted. I am supported in this view by an unreported decision of this Court dated 26.11.1993 in O.P.No.10465 of 1993. In the said case also, the question involved was whether the insistence on production of a Legal Heirship Certificate as a condition for transfer of a vehicle to the name of a daughter, was sustainable. After having considered the scope of the Rule as well as the other decisions on the point, P.K.Balasubramanyan J. (as he then was) has concluded the issue in the following words: “In the light of these decisions it appears to me that the insistence on the production of legal heir certificate by the first respondent for considering the application for clearance certificate is not justified. It appears that the petitioner has not produced the original of Ext.P3 before the first respondent while seeking the issuance of the clearance certificate. Under those circumstances it appears to me that the proper course to follow is to direct the first respondent to issue the clearance certificate and to effect the transfer of ownership in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner producing before the first respondent a certificate from the Village Officer or the original of Ext.P3 marked here showing that she is the only heir of her deceased father or a certificate to the same effect from the concerned Tahsildar to substantiate the fact that she is the only heir of her father”. I am in respectful agreement with the above dictum. Therefore, it has to be held that, insistence on the production of one particular document alone, the Legal Heirship Certificate in the present case is also without justification. However, the requirement of producing W.P.(C) No.16718 of 2011 4 some certificate or other document to prove the entitlement of the applicant for transfer of the vehicle to his or her name is absolutely necessary.” It was held that insistence by the Regional Transport Authority on the production of a document showing the entitlement of the petitioner for transfer of the vehicle cannot be faulted. The learned single Judge also held that document which is to be produced may be a legal heirship certificate, a relationship certificate issued by the Village Officer or a succession certificate, a Will or Partnership deed or some other document that would show that the applicant has succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. It was also held that if there are more legal heirs to the deceased than the applicant, the consent of others is also necessary. In the light of the said pronouncement, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should furnish before the registering authority a legal heirship certificate or a relationship certificate issued by the Village Officer. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that on the petitioner producing a legal heirship certificate or a relationship certificate issued by the Village Officer, the competent authority among the respondents shall consider Ext.P5 application and pass orders thereon within two weeks from the date of production of W.P.(C) No.16718 of 2011 5 such a certificate. Depending on the decision taken, the necessary endorsements shall thereafter be made on the originals of the certificates of registration. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.