MEENA Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal filed under Sec. 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the original petitioner has challenged the judgment dtd. 7/12/2023, delivered by the learned Single Judge in the captioned W.P.(C)No.22556/2023, by which, the learned Single Judge refused to entertain the prayer made by the appellant to issue a writ of mandamus to transfer the ownership of vehicles bearing registration Nos. KL-23N-1762, KL-23P-7475 and KL-23R-321 in the name of the appellant, she being the widow of the original owner of the vehicles. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the amounts due to the financier of the vehicles is outstanding and fines/penalty imposed through e-challans, for breach of Motor Vehicles Act / Rules, were not remitted by the deceased owner. Short facts arising out of the appeal are as under.

(2.) The appellant's husband Sri. Saji P.K. was the registered owner of the aforesaid three Heavy Goods Carriage Vehicles, issued with Goods Carriage permits by the RTA, Karunagappally. Sri. Saji P.K. passed away on 16/11/2020, and thereupon, his widow, the present appellant, requested the 1st respondent RTO to transfer the ownership of all three vehicles in her name. In support of the request, the affidavit jointly sworn to by the mother and son of deceased Saji was also produced. But, the Regional Transport Officer refused to accept the application citing blacklisting of the vehicles. Aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge found the reason for not accepting the application to be correct and dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the authority as well as the learned Single Judge have committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant for transfer of the vehicles. He would submit that as per Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, on the death of the registered owner, the ownership of the vehicle is required to be transferred to the nominee of the owner or the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle. He, therefore, would submit that the pendency of liability due to the financier or non-payment of amounts due under the e-challans would not stand in the way of the ownership being transferred to the successor.