POULOSE Vs. R T O PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is to quash Ext. P3 notice of the 2nd respondent. Under a family settlement, two vehicles along with the permits, viz. stage carriages KRP 7461 and KLH 3283, were decided to be allotted to the brother and sister inlaw of the petitioner. Therefore, joint applications were filed for the transfer. The Regional Transport Authority, at its meetings held on 10-9-1991 and 22-9-1991, allowed the transfer. Exts.Pl and P2 are the orders. Ext. P1 says that, "Heard the applicant. No objections. Transfer of permit is granted." That was in respect of the vehicle KLH 3283. Similarly, Ext. P2 also says, "Heard the applicant. No objections. Transfer of permit is granted." That was in respect of the vehicle KRP 7461. Under S.82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, transfer of permit is allowed with the permission, of the Regional Transport Authority which granted the permit. S.82(l) reads as follows:

(2.) Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that there is only a notice evidenced by Ext. P3 and all the contentions available to the petitioner can be urged before the 2nd respondent. However, the notice Ext. P3 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority under R.121 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, calling the petitioner for personal hearing, is not one issued according to law. That notice ought to have been issued before the decision was taken. After the decision for transfer is taken by the Regional Transport Authority, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, who is the executing authority, has no power to afford a personal hearing to any objector against the transfer. The concluded decision cannot be re-opened by the Secretary by giving an opportunity to be heard to the objectors. If the objector has any grievance, it is for him to seek his remedies before the appropriate forum.

(3.) Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, the file of the Regional Transport Authority was made available for my perusal by the Government Pleader. It is stated that the decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority to transfer the vehicle and there were no objections against. the transfer. Therefore, the transfer of permit was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority. It is stated that a letter dated 13-9-1991 was received from the Secretary, District Motor Transport Employees Union, object in to the transfer of ownership of the vehicles and hearing notices were issued to the objector and the petitioner for a personal hearing on 11-11-1991 as mentioned in Ext. P3.