IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA, 1930 WP(C).No. 24660 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.SURESH KUMAR, MACHINGAL HOUSE, P.O. MANNEMCODE, VIA, PATTAMBI. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRASPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD. 3. PATHUKUTTY, W/O LATE M.T. KHADER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM. 4. KUTTIMOIDU, S/O LATE M.T. KHADER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM. 5. MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O LATE M.T. KHADER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM. 6. MOHAMMED RAFEEK, S/O LATE M.T. KHADER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM. 7. ABDUL JALEEL,S/O LATE M.T. KHADER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM. 8. SALIM, S/O LATE M.T. KHADER, MACHINGATHODI HOUSE, AMBALAVATTOM, PANAMANNA, OTTAPPALAM. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.SREELTHA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24660/2008 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH SRI. M.T.KHADER DTD. 3/06/2003. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 16/08/2005. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 21/08/2006. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES SIGNED ON 8/06/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 21/08/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 17/09/2007. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM AS MVAA.NO.634/2007 DTD. 15/10/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE S.T.A.T. IN M.P.NO.2829/2007 IN M.V.A.A.NO.634/2007 DTD. 30/11/2007. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT OF THE S.T.A.T. IN M.V.A.A.NOS.633/2007 AND 634/2007 DTD. 25/07/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.24660 OF 2008 (I) ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P9 Judgment rendered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam in M.V.A.A. Nos.633/2007 and 634/2007. 2. The facts of the case are that the husband of the third respondent was the registered owner of the two stage carriages bearing registration Nos.KL-09/K2063 and KL-10/J 432, which were having regular permits also. The permit holder, the husband of the third respondent expired on 22-9-2005. However, in so far as KL-10/J 432 is concerned, the third respondent or respondents 4 to 8, the other legal heirs, did not report the death or make application for transfer of the vehicle and the permit within the time permitted under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act. W.P.(C) No.24660/2008 - 2 - 3. However, it is stated that after about eight months of the death, applications were made by the third respondent for transfer and renewal of permit. According to the petitioner, the applications made by the third respondent were supported by the documents, which indicated the concurrence of the respondents 4 to 8, the other legal heirs of the deceased. The petitioner submits that those documents were forged and has a reason to raise this grievance. 4. Petitioner's grievance against third respondent and the other legal heirs is that, according to him, by Exhibit P1 agreement dated 3-6-2003, he had purchased the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-9/K 2063 from to the deceased husband of the third respondent by paying Rs.7,50,000/-. It is stated that during the life time of the registered owner/permit holder, the vehicle and the permit were not transferred to him. It is stated that neither the third respondent nor the other legal heirs transferred the vehicle or the permit, despite the deceased registered owner having received valuable consideration from him. Not only that, according to him, on 21-8-2006, the third W.P.(C) No.24660/2008 - 3 - respondent submitted an application for a fresh permit in respect of the vehicle and the said application is still pending. 5. In view of the above grievance that the petitioner had against the party respondents filed Exhibit P5 objection before the RTA by pointing out that the documents produced by the third respondent in support of the transfer and renewal of the permit in relation to vehicle KL-10/J 432 were forged. According to him, the matter was enquired into by the RTA and at the instance of the RTA, a criminal case was also registered. For this reason, RTA passed Exhibit P6 Proceedings deferring the consideration of the applications made by the third respondent. 6. It was aggrieved by Exhibit P6 that M.V.A.A. Nos.633/2007 and 634/2007 were filed by the third respondent. Thus, the reading of Exhibit P6 shows that RTA did not consider the application of the third respondent on merits. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner attempted to implead himself but the application was rejected by the Tribunal. W.P.(C) No.24660/2008 - 4 - Subsequently, it would appear that the respondents 4 to 8 filed affidavits concurring to the transfer and renewal of the permit in favour of the third respondent. Thereupon, the Tribunal by Exhibit P9, allowed the appeal and directed the RTA to transfer and renew the permit in favour of the third respondent. These directions are challenged in this writ petition. 7. Though notice has been served to respondents 3 to 8, there is no appearance on their behalf. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 9. Proceedings of the RTA, Exhibits P6, discloses that there has not been any consideration on merits. Despite that, the Tribunal directed the transfer and renewal of the permit. In my view, if the Tribunal had found that the applications made by the third respondent deserved consideration, in view of the fact that the RTA did not consider W.P.(C) No.24660/2008 - 5 - the applications on merit, the course which should have been adopted, was to have set aside Exhibit P6 and directed the RTA to consider applications on merits. On the other hand, against the mandate of Rule 28 of the Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal proceeded to direct transfer of vehicle and permit. This course adopted by the Tribunal is impermissible and for that reason Exhibit P9 to the extent permit is advised to be transferred and renewed is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the applications made by the third respondent for the transfer and renewal of the permit concerning the vehicle bearing registration No.KL- 10/J 432 will be reconsidered by the first respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE skr