MANI E.K. Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Venugopalan A.N., the husband of the petitioner, was the permit holder of stage carriage bearing Reg.No. KL-7/AW-3333 plying through the route Pottachira-Perumbavoor. The said permit was valid till 25.04.2020. Venugopalan breathed his last on 30.08.2019. The petitioner claims that she is in possession of the vehicle. Exhibit P3 relationship issued by the Village Officer after due inquiry reveals that the deceased Venugopalan has left behind the petitioner his wife and two children who are adults. 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). She also produced Ext.P4 no objection certificate signed by her children wherein they state that they have no objection in transferring the ownership of the stage carriage to the name of the petitioner. She states that she submitted transfer of permit application as well as request before the 2nd respondent. However, they are insisting upon the petitioner herein to produce a 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 directions to the respondents to consider and finalize Ext.P5 application seeking transfer of permit and Ext.P8 renewal of permit application without insisting for the production of a legal heirship certificate.

(2.) Sri.G. Prabhakaran, 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.