SUJATHA C. Vs. SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the widow of one Surendran. He expired on 28.05.2018, as evidenced by Ext. P3 death certificate. He was the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. KL-09/W-3233. The certificate of registration of the said vehicle and the regular permit are placed on record as Exts. P1 to P2. The application, Ext. P4 made by the petitioner for transfer of ownership of the aforesaid stage carriage was returned insisting production of legal heirship certificate, as a pre-condition. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of Exts. P5 relationship certificate and Exts. P6 and P7 declaration by other legal heirs, Ext. P4 application is not entertained by the respondent. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad to accept Ext. P4 application [wrongly stated as Ext. P3 application in relief No. (i)] for transfer of vehicle KL-09/W-3233 from the name of late registered owner to the name of the petitioner, without insisting for Legal Heirship Certificate and taking note of the Relationship Certificate issued by the Village Officer and endorse the transfer in the RC particulars of the vehicle, within a time frame.

(2.) In Bhagyalashmy P. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad [2010 (2) KLT 431], this Court held 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 he produces an acceptable document to prove his entitlement for such transfer.

(3.) The document may be the legal heirship certificate, a relationship certificate issued by the Village Officer or a succession certificate, a Will or a partnership deed or some other document that would show that he had succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said judgment read thus: