Ambujakshy vs Regional Transport Authority And Ors

The petitioner is the widow of one Karunakaran who was the holder of a regular permit issued in respect of a stage carriage for conducting service on the route Padam - Adoor. The permit was valid for a period of five years from 24.03.2000 to 23.03.2005. The permit was renewed for a further period of five years from 24.03.2005 to 23.03.2010. On 29.12.2008, during the currency of the renewed permit, Sri. Karunakaran died due to cancer. He was survived by the petitioner, who is his wife and his son Sri. Kamalandan. On 27.11.2012, Kamalandan also died due to cancer.

On 01.04.2014, the stage carriage met with an accident and when the records of the vehicle were scrutinized, it was found that the permit of the stage carriage was still standing in the name of the original permit holder Karunakaran.

On 04.04.2014, the petitioner made application for the transfer of the permit to her name. As per Ext.P1 decision dated 19.05.2014 of the 1st respondent Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as RTA), the request of the petitioner for transfer of permit was allowed subject to the remittance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- as penalty for not intimating the fact of death of the permit holder within the prescribed time. Thereafter, pursuant to the enquiry conducted on the basis of a complaint received by the Chairman, RTA from one Sri. Venu Nair, the RTA as per Ext.P2 order dated 18.07.2014, cancelled the permit issued to the stage carriage for the period from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2015 on the ground that the renewal of the permit was in the name of a dead person.

Impugning Ext.P2 order cancelling the permit, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal under section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as M.V.A.A. No.142/2014 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Pending the said appeal, the petitioner also filed Ext. P3 application for renewal of the permit in her own name and Ext. P3 (a) application for condoning the delay in filing the application for renewal of the permit. The Tribunal, as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 16.10.2014, dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.27780/2014 before this Court for directing the RTA to consider the application filed by her for renewal of permit on merits. This Court, by Ext. P5 judgment, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the RTA to consider Ext.P3 application for renewal of permit made by the petitioner independent of the order of revocation which was confirmed by the Tribunal.

As per Ext.P6 order dated 11.12.2014, the RTA rejected Ext. P3 application for renewal of permit in the name of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner misdirected the RTA by concealing the death of the permit holder and thereby got the permit renewed fraudulently and that the petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act in the matter of getting the permit transferred to her name and that the permit itself stands revoked by Ext.P2 order.

Impugning Ext.P6 order, the petitioner filed M.V.A.A. No.63/2015 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by Ext.P7 judgment dated 27.04.2015 allowed the appeal and directed the RTA to reconsider the application for renewal of permit filed by the petitioner expeditiously as possible. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the allegation that the petitioner had concealed the death of the original permit holder and fraudulently obtained renewal of the permit. Regarding non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82 of the Act for failure to intimate the death of the permit holder within the time specified, the Tribunal found that the RTA had already condoned the said omission by Ext.P1 order by imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000/-. The Tribunal also found that the fact that the permit was once revoked is not a sufficient ground to reject the application for renewal of the permit, particularly, in the light of the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment to consider the application for renewal of permit independent of the order of revocation. Thus, the Tribunal found that none of the grounds mentioned in Ext.P6 order for rejecting the application for renewal of permit are legally valid or sustainable. The Tribunal observed that what the RTA has to consider is whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in making the application for renewal of permit which expired in the year 2010 and if so, whether the permit can be renewed in the name of the petitioner, especially in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal in Ext. P7 Judgment to reconsider the application for renewal of permit filed by the petitioner, the RTA passed Ext.P8 order rejecting Ext.P3 application for renewal of permit. The operative portion of Ext.P8 reads thus;

"1. There is no compliance of the provisions of Rule (1), (2), (3) of the MV Act 1988 which to be observed by the Successor after the death of the Registered Owner of the vehicle in this case.

The applicant misguided the RTA by connecting the fact that the permit holder was expired six years back and got the permit fraudulently which stands revoked by this authority. Considering the above facts and reasons this authority has believed that there is sufficient cause to apply for renewal of this permit in the stipulated time during the period from 24/03/2010 to 23/03/2015. The reason specified by the appellant for not renew the permit in the stipulated time is that she had not aware of this fraudulent activities behind this cannot be considerable.

Hence rejected the application for renewal of permit"

Though from the very language of Ext.P8 order it is difficult to comprehend the contents thereof, I could decipher that the RTA has rejected the application of the petitioner for renewal of permit for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 82 (1), (2) and (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has to be observed by the successor after the death of the Registered owner of the vehicle and that the petitioner misguided the RTA by concealing the fact that the permit holder had expired six years back and got the permit fraudulently which stands revoked by the RTA. On the basis of the above, the RTA found that there is no sufficient cause to apply for renewal of permit within the stipulated time during the period from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2015 and the reason put forward by the petitioner for not renewing the permit in time that she was not aware of the fraudulent activities, cannot be considered. Ext. P8 is impugned in this writ petition.

Heard Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for the respondents.

Sri. P.Deepak submits that the reasons stated in Ext. P8 order by the RTA are the vary same reasons stated in Ext. P6 for rejection of renewal of permit which were found to be not valid and sustainable by the Tribunal in Ext.P7 judgment. The RTA was directed to reconsider the application for permit after considering whether the appellant has shown sufficient cause for the delay in making the application for renewal of permit and if so, whether the permit can be renewed in the name of the petitioner, especially in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The RTA found that there is no sufficient cause for the delay in making the application as there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 82 of the Act which has to be observed by a successor after the death of the permit holder and that the petitioner got the permit renewed fraudulently and misguided the RTA and that it cannot be believed that the petitioner was not aware of the fraudulent activities behind the renewal.

The Tribunal by Ext. P7 judgment has already found that none of the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 order for rejecting the application for renewal of permit are valid and sustainable. Reasons stated in Ext.P8 are nothing but a verbatim from Ext.P6. The Tribunal found that there is no basis for the allegation against the petitioner that she got the permit renewed fraudulently by concealing the fact of death of the original permit holder. The Tribunal also found that non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 82 of the Act to be observed by a successor after the death of the permit holder cannot be a ground in the present case to reject the application for renewal of the permit. The Tribunal also found that the RTA cannot refuse renewal of permit on the ground that the permit earlier renewed in the name of a dead person was revoked. The very reasons stated by the RTA in Ext.P6 for rejecting the application for renewal which were found to be not valid and legal by the Tribunal, have been stated by the RTA in Ext.P8 for refusing to reconsider the application for renewal as directed by the Tribunal. There is total non-application of mind by the RTA in rejecting the application for renewal of permit. The order of an authority cancelling permit or issuance of permit is a quasi-judicial function. This Court in Basheer T.M. v. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ekm and

Another (2016 (2) KHC 253), relying on various judgments of the Apex Court has held that the Regional Transport Authority is exercising quasi judicial functions in dealing with applications for permit. Being a quasi judicial authority, the RTA has to act judicially under the Statute in deciding the application for renewal of license. If the Respondents including the Chairman and the members of the RTA had taken the slightest effort "to peruse the Judgment in M.V.A.A No. 63/2015; dated 27.04.2016 of the Honorable STAT, Ernakulam" as referred to in the 'Agenda' of the meeting of the RTA, they would not have in Ext. P8 repeated the same grounds as in Ext.P6 to reject the application for renewal of permit. Ext.P8 order is vitiated by non-application of mind. I set aside Ext.P8 order.

The petitioner is a 77 year old widow who lost her two sons. Ext. P3 application for renewal of permit was submitted on 25.09.2014. The Tribunal passed Ext.P7 judgment to reconsider Ext. P3 application for renewal of permit on 27.04.2016. The matter was remanded to the RTA for the limited purpose to consider whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in making the application for renewal of the permit and if so, whether the permit can be renewed in the name of the petitioner, especially in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Sri.P.Deepak, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, this is a fit case where directions are to be issued by this Court for grant of renewal of permit. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd (AIR 1952 SC 192), this Court cannot, at this stage, consider the said submission. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to reconsider Ext.P3 application for renewal of the permit made by the petitioner as directed in Ext.P7 judgment of the Tribunal with in a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.