AYSHA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTORITY KASARAGOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's husband K. A. Farooq was granted a permit to ply a stage carriage. With variations, granted and effected, that was renewed up to 17/04/2007, as evidenced by Ext. P1 with effect from 27/10/1989 that permit was transferred to the petitioner and issued for the vehicle KLS-399.

(2.) Petitioner challenges the cancellation of the said permit as per Ext. P4 decision of the RTA and Ext. P6 order of the STAT confirming the said decision. She also seeks a declaration that non replacement of vehicle is no ground for cancellation of permit under S.87(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(3.) Following the renewal of the permit, to be valid till 17/04/2007, the petitioner and her grandson submitted a joint application for transfer of permit to his name. That application was granted on 22/12/2003. Petitioner's grandson obtained a new stage carriage to replace vehicle KLS - 399 hoping transfer of permit in his name. The statutory authority required the petitioner's grandson to produce Form No. 30 duly attested by the financier for effecting the transfer of ownership of the vehicle. The financier refused to do so. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was notified of the proposal to cancel the permit since her vehicle had completed 15 years of age by 31/03/2004 and the vehicle was not replaced in terms of the decision of the STAT following directions of this Court. The petitioner responded by contending that the financier has not issued the clearance certificate. In the meanwhile, another stage carriage with Registration No. KL - 13/A-6316 was obtained by the petitioner from her grandson and provided before the statutory authorities for replacement. The RTO, however, issued the impugned Ext. P4 decision revoking the transfer and cancelling the permit on ground that the petitioner had failed to apply for replacement of the outdated vehicle by a later model vehicle on or before 31/03/2004. It is that order that has been confirmed by the STAT as per the impugned Ext. P6 judgment.