SHAMSEENA P.S. Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Shamsudeen P.A., the father of the petitioner, was the permit holder of Stage Carriage bearing registration number KL-56/J-4345 plying through the route Ollur-Mannannur. The said permit is valid till 4.12.2020. While so, the permit holder breathed his last on 3.12.2019 as is evident from Exhibit P1 death certificate leaving behind his wife and three children. The petitioner claims that she is in possession of the vehicle. To bolster her assertions, the petitioner has placed on record, the permit and the RC Book as Exhibits P2 and P3. Exhibit P4 relationship issued by the Village Officer after due inquiry reveals that the deceased Shamsudeen has left behind his wife and three children. After the death of the permit holder, intimation was given to the RTA by the petitioner asserting that she is the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit as contemplated under Section 82 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (" The Act " for short). From Exhibit P6, it is apparent that the mother, as well as the siblings of the petitioner, has filed a declaration before the respondent that they have no objection in transferring the ownership of the vehicle to the name of the petitioner and that they have no claim over the same. She contends that though all documents were submitted by the petitioner as aforesaid, the respondent is insisting on the production of Legal heirship certificate, as a pre-condition for acceptance of those applications. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur to accept to endorse the fact of transfer of permit on the route Ollur-Mannannur and transfer of vehicle bearing registration No KL-56/ J-4345 from the name of the late permit holder to the name of the petitioner herein without insisting for Legal heirship certificate and by accepting the relationship certificate and declaration by other legal heirs.

(2.) Sri.I Dinesh Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the report in Bhagyalekshmy P. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad [2010 (2) KLT 431], and it was argued that since Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules does not stipulate production of any particular document to prove the claim of the applicant, it is sufficient that she produces an acceptable document to prove her entitlement for such transfer. He contends that the respondent was not justified in insisting for the production of a legal heirship certificate particularly when the provisions of the Act and Rules do not insist on the same. The learned counsel has also relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 2.8.2019 in W.P.(C). No. 19793 of 2019 wherein identical issue was considered and the ratio laid down in Bhagyalekshmi (supra) was followed.

(3.) Heard the learned Government Pleader and I have considered the submissions.