K KUMAR Vs. POOMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.V. Raghavachari, learned counsel in support of this appeal. Mr.K.M.Venugopal, learned counsel appears for the contesting respondent No.1/caveator. Mr.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appears for respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) THE appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the order passed by the second respondent - State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which in turn had set aside the order passed by the third respondent - Regional Transport Authority.

(3.) MR. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the appellant, points out that under the relevant Rules, viz., The Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules'), all that is required is that the party applying for transfer of permit on death of the permit holder, has to produce No Objection Certificate from all the legal heirs, which has been done in the instant case. That is the requirement of Rule 214 of the Rules. He points out that after necessary documents were submitted, the first respondent changed her stand. Initially, she submitted that her signature was taken by unlawful means and by force. Subsequently, she contended that her signature was fabricated. The learned counsel pointed out that therefore the appellate authority went into all these aspects and allowed the transfer under Rule 214. The learned Single Judge, however, referred to Rule 212 of the Rules and took the view that the respondent No.1 had withdrawn her consent before the order for transfer of permit was passed. According to MR.Ragavachari, the view of the learned Judge is erroneous. Rule 212 has no application to the facts of this case. Rule 214 is the relevant Rule. He also points out that a suit has been filed by the respondent No.1 and subject to the decision in the said suit, in the meanwhile, the permit ought to be allowed to be transferred, which is what the appellate authority has done.