SOUMYA S Vs. SHINE P.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of late Shan P.G., who was the registered owner and permit holder in respect of stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-03/P-625. Under the permit the vehicle could operate on the route Ranni to Thiruvalla and the permit was valid up to 05.01.2014. It would appear that the petitioner's husband died on 22.8.2010 leaving the petitioner and her mother-in-law Sumathikutty Amma as the Class-I legal heirs. After the death of the petitioner's husband, Sumathikutty Amma applied for a transfer of the permit in her name. On coming to know of the application filed by the said Sumathikutty Amma before the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner filed her objections to the proposed transfer. The application filed by Sumathikutty Amma was, however, not considered on account of the fact that she had not produced any document to substantiate her legal entitlement to possess the vehicle. A subsequent application preferred by Sumathikutty Amma for a temporary permit to operate the vehicle in the same route, although refused by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, was eventually granted to her in appeal. Although the said grant was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition, the same was rejected by this Court. On the strength of the temporary permit, Smt. Sumathikutty Amma operated the vehicle in the route aforementioned.

(2.) The facts in the writ petition would indicate that on 01.07.2016 Sumathikutty Amma garaged the vehicle and submitted a non-use intimation. It is not in dispute that, thereafter, on 11.6.2017, Sumathikutty Amma expired. Immediately thereafter, by an application dated 13.07.2017, the 1st respondent, who is the brother of the petitioner's late husband, and the son of late Sumathikutty Amma, applied for a transfer of permit in respect of the vehicle as a successor to the possession of the vehicle. On coming to know of the filing of such an application, the petitioner filed her objections to the same. The application preferred by the 1st respondent was thereafter taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority on 28.9.2017, and after taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority, by Ext. P3 order dated 28.09.2017, rejected the application of the 1st respondent for transfer of permit. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal as MVAA No. 261 of 2017 before the STAT. Taking note of the filing of the appeal, the petitioner got herself impleaded in the said appeal. The appeal was subsequently disposed by Ext. P6 judgment dated 20.07.2018, whereby the STAT remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, through an application dated 04.01.2018, the petitioner too requested for a transfer of the permit in her name as the successor to the possession of the vehicle. Thereafter, and acting in tune with the directions of the STAT P6 judgment, the petitioner and the 1st respondent were directed by the 3rd respondent to produce documents to substantiate their respective contentions regarding the succession to the possession of the vehicle. Thereafter, after examining the material before it, the 2nd respondent, by Ext. P9 order dated 23.02.2019, allowed the petitioner's application and rejected the application preferred by the 1st respondent for the transfer of permit. Aggrieved by the said order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent preferred both an appeal and a revision against Ext. P9 order before the STAT. The appeal was preferred against the decision in Ext. P9 to accept the application of the petitioner and the revision was filed against the decision in Ext. P9 that rejected the application of the 1st respondent. The appeal and revision were both considered by STAT in Ext. P12 order, which set aside Ext. P9 order and directed the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter after looking into the documents produced by the 1st respondent and the petitioner to substantiate their contentions with regard to succession to the possession of the vehicle in question. Ext. P12 order of the STAT is impugned in this writ petition, inter alia, on the contention that none of the grounds urged by the writ petitioner before the STAT were considered by the STAT and further that the findings in Ext. P12 order are clearly illegal inasmuch as they are contrary to the express provisions of the statute.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein detailed averments have been made regarding the marital life of the petitioner and her late husband to suggest that the relationship was not cordial. It is also the case of the 1st respondent that, for obtaining the possession of the vehicle as also the permit, the petitioner has instituted a suit as O.S. No. 61 of 2014 before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta for declaration of title and also for partition of properties owned by her late husband. It is the case of the 1st respondent that it is by suppressing all these facts that the petitioner had filed W.P.(C). No. 11963/2018 earlier, as also the present writ petition impugning Ext. P12 order of the STAT. With specific reference to the statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is stated that the application of the 1st respondent under Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act was rightly allowed by the STAT, which found force in the contention of the 1st respondent with regard to his entitlement to the transfer of the permit and it was under those circumstances that through Ext. P12 order, Ext. P9 order was set aside and a re-consideration of the matter directed by the STAT. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent would also vehemently maintain that, inasmuch as the 1st respondent is in factual possession of the vehicle, the findings of the STAT, that suggest that he could also aspire for a transfer of the permit, cannot be said to be legally flawed.