IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 13438 of 2008(Y) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.S.SUDHEESH, VAZHINADAKKAL HOUSE, VATANAPPILLY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON 03/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13438/2008-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A. DTD. 14/06/2006. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 22/12/2007. EXT.P.3: TRUE EXTRACT OF THE AGENDA OF THE R.T.A. MEETING. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 02/01/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF W.P. NO. 5899/2008 DTD. 19/02/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE R.T.A. DTD. 15/02/2008. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 82 (3) PROVISO DTD. 02/01/2008. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD. 02/01/2008. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN M.V.A.A. NO. 175/2008 DTD. 25/03/2008. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN M.V.A.A. 175 & 187/2008 DTD. 15/04/2008. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 - Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd July, 2008 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for quashing Ext. P6 and P10 and to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the proceedings which led to the aforesaid impugned orders. 2. The main point that is canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ext. P6 which was confirmed by the STAT in Ext. P10 judgment is vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice for the reason that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before Ext. P6 order was passed. 3. For deciding the correctness of the contention raised, a brief examination of the facts is necessary. Ext. P1 is the regular permit granted in respect of stage carriage KL 8 AA/4316 in favour of Smt. K. Vimala, Kattappurath House, Kolazhy subject to settlement of timing. The grantee did not produce the current records and timings were also not settled. While so, Smt. Vimala W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 -2- expired on 20.4.2007 and the petitioner claims that he had succeeded to her estate on the strength of a will dated 29.3.2006 executed by the deceased. Copy of the will is not produced in this writ petition. 4. It is not in dispute that the death of the grantee was not intimated to the 2nd respondent as required under Section 82(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ultimately, without being aware of the death of Smt. Vimala, timing was scheduled and permit was also issued on 21.7.2007. Still later, on 31.7.2007 the petitioner submitted an application claiming to be the legatee of Smt. Vimala and sought transfer of the permit in his favour. 5. On receipt of the request and coming to know of the death of Smt. Vimala and that it was after her death the permit was issued in the name of the deceased, the 2nd respondent proposed to take action against the permit under Section 86(d) and issued Ext. P2 show cause notice to the petitioner. The allegations in Ext. P2 are that the permit was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and the the petitioner had also tried to transfer the permit hiding the death of the permit holder. Ext. P4 is the reply submitted by the W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 -3- petitioner. After the show cause notice was issued, the 2nd respondent in its meeting held on 15.2.2008, included in the agenda a proposal to take action against the permit. 6. At that stage the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C) No. 5899/08 for directing the Secretary, RTA to place the application for transfer submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, despite receipt of notice from this Court the proposal to take action against the permit was considered by the RTA, and the RTA proceeded to pass Ext. P6, cancelling the permit since Smt. Vimala had expired prior to the issue of the permit and that the permit was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Consequently, the application for transfer of the permit submitted by the petitioner was also rejected. 7. Petitioner filed appeals before the STAT and the appeals were heard and dismissed by Ext. P10. It is in this background the writ petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above. As noticed the contention raised is that the RTA ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in pursuance to Ext. P3, the agenda item resulting in Ext. P6. W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 -4- 8. It is true that when a permit is cancelled the permit holder is entitled to be heard and this position is not in dispute. However, the question whether in the facts as stated above the petitioner is entitled to be heard. The proposal in Ext. P3 agenda item was to take action against the permit in respect of stage carriage KL 88 AA 4316. To be affected by the cancellation of a permit, one should either be a permit holder or be entitled to succeed to the permit holder. Admittedly the permit in question was granted in favour of Smt. Vimala on 14.6.2006 and was issued on 21.7.2007. Much prior to the issue of the permit Smt. Vimala expired on 20.4.2007. Under Section 82(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, within 30 days inform the transport authority which granted the permit and his intention to use the permit. In this case admittedly Smt. Vimala expired on 20.4.2007 and though the petitioner claims to have succeeded to the estate of the deceased by virtue of the will dated 29.3.2006, the petitioner has no case that the death was intimated to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the permit was issued to a person who was no longer W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 -5- alive. If that be so, the permit issued is nonest in the eye of law. 9. The further question would be, when permit was thus obtained by the petitioner without disclosing the death of the grantee, whether the petitioner is entitled to be heard when action is proposed to be taken against the permit. In my view, when the permit is nonest, the petitioner can have no claim as against such a nonest permit. If that be so, when action is proposed to be taken against such a nonest permit, petitioner who is a stranger can have no claim for notice of the agenda or for an opportunity of hearing. That apart, natural justice can be claimed by a person who is clean in his motives. In this case, after the death of the permit holder, timing schedule was got settled and the respondents were led to issue the permit in the name of the deceased. All these have been done without disclosing the death of the permit holder which was a fact well within the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner having conducted the service in a fraudulent and dishonest manner, cannot insist on the compliance of natural justice. 10. Apart from all these, want of notice in pursuance to Ext. P3 W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 -6- is not an issue that was canvassed before the appellate authority. A reading of Ext. P10 judgment shows that the petitioner did not have such a grievance when the appeal was heard. If that be so, there is absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be permitted to urge this contention raised for the first time in these proceedings. Writ petition lacks merit and is only to be dismissed and I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-