HASSANKUTTY Vs. S T A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent in OP No. 6039 of 1987 is the appellant in this writ Appeal. The petitioner in the Original Petition is the 4th respondent in this Writ Appeal. Respondents 1 to 3 are the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the Regional Transport Authority, Palghat and its Secretary. The Original Petition was filed to quash Ext. P4 judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21-7-1987, rendered in M. V. A. A. No. 183 of 1987. The appellant and the 4th respondent are rival applicants for a temporary permit for 4 months in the newly introduced route Marayamangalam Athirkad. The Regional Transport Authority, by Ext. P1 proceedings, preferred the 4th respondent to the appellant. The appellant was screened since he did not produce the motor vehicle tax clearance certificate as per the Rules. By Ext. P4 judgment, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside Ext P1. The period of the temporary permit expired on 27-7-1987. Since Ext. P4 judgment was delivered a week before the date of expiry, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the 4th respondent to conduct the service till the expiry of the period. Bhat, J. quashed Ext. P4 judgment of the RTAT and restored Ext. P1 proceedings of the RTA. It was held that the 4th respondent failed to produce the tax clearance certificate relating to KRF 2241 and so failed to conform to R.177A(3B)(a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Aggrieved by the said decision, the 4th respondent in the OP has filed this writ appeal. The judgment of Bhat, J is reported in 1987 (2) KLT 314 .

(2.) We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Easwara Iyer. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant failed to conform to the requirements of R.177A(3B)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The said rule is as follows:

(3.) Mr. Easwara Iyer, appellant's counsel, vehemently contended that the view of the learned Single Judge that all partners are joint owners or coowners of the entire partnership property, that a partner is a part-owner of the partnership assets, and so when a partner, like the appellant, applied for a permit in his individual capacity, he is bound to produce the tax clearance certificate relating to the vehicle which forms part of the assets of the firm etc. is erroneous. It was argued that the above view is unsustainable in law. Counsel argued that the vehicle belonged to the firm and the individual partner has no transferable interest during the continuance of the firm. The individual partner cannot be called as a coowner or joint owner or part owner of the vehicle. The learned Single Judge was wrong in holding so. Counsel read a few passages from Lindley on Partnership, Fourteenth Edition and the Pollock and Mulla on the Indian Partnership Act.