IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 34541 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN P.K, S/O.ABDULLA KUNHI, PUDIYA KANDAM HOUSE, NEKRAJE P.O,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.SAJEEV K. GOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY,REGIONAL RANSPORT AUTHORITY,KASARAGOD. 2. SMT.ZUBAIDA, W/O.ABDULLA N.A, K.P.HOUSE,KANATHINPURAM, NEKRAJE, KASARAGOD. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI, R2 BY ADVS. MR.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SMT.R.LEELA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34541/2008-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A. KASARAGOD AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 24/10/2008 IN ITEM NO. 22. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34541 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner claimed that he purchased a stage carriage KL-14/C-9603 from the 2 nd respondent. An application, stated to be a joint application by the 2 nd respondent and the petitioner, was moved before the Regional Transport Authority for transfer of the permit. By Ext.P1 the permit was allowed to be transferred. The petitioner then approached the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority for endorsing the transfer. At that point of time, the 2 nd respondent submitted an objection before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority stating that her signature in the joint application was forged and she had not agreed for the transfer. The Secretary W.P.(C).No.34541 of 2008 :: 2 :: Regional Transport Authority is, therefore, declining to endorse the transfer and hence this writ petition praying for a direction to the 1 st respondent to implement Ext.P1 decision of the Regional Transport Authority, Kasargod. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2 nd respondent contending that she had not agreed for transfer of the vehicle or the permit. But the petitioner was only entrusted with the management of the bus. He had forged the signature of the 2 nd respondent. She had no notice of the hearing conducted by the Regional Transport Authority on 24.10.2008 and in these circumstances, the transfer of the permit cannot be given effect to, it is contended. W.P.(C).No.34541 of 2008 :: 3 :: 3. I heard counsel on either side. The remedy of the 2 nd respondent is to challenge the transfer of the permit, if she is aggrieved by the same. This will have to be done before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. That has not been done so far. It is not open to the Secretary to consider an objection regarding the validity of the transfer, which has been ordered by the Regional Transport Authority. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1 st respondent to proceed to effect endorsement of the transfer of the permit ordered under Ext.P1 within two weeks, after the expiry of six weeks from today. In the meanwhile, it is open to the 2 nd respondent to take steps to challenge Ext.P1 and if W.P.(C).No.34541 of 2008 :: 4 :: during the interregnum, the competent tribunal grants any stay as regards the operation of Ext.P1, the Secretary Regional Transport Authority shall abide by any such order. If no stay is granted by the competent authority, the 1 st respondent shall take steps to endorse the transfer and take further steps in accordance with law. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//