K.B. Balakrishna Rai vs The Regional Transport Authority

B.S. Patil, J.—Order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, ''the Tribunal'') in R.P. No. 258/2009, is called in question in this writ petition.

Permit No. 25/DK/79-80 for the route from Kollur to Talapady was held by one S. Chandrashekar - father of 2nd respondent. It was valid up to 13.06.2002. S. Chandrashekar - permit holder died on 30.05.1999. His son - 2nd respondent filed an application for renewal of the permit allegedly on 22.05.2002. As urged by the petitioner, the vehicle operated under the permit was surrendered and no replaced vehicle was introduced. Therefore, it is the case of the petitioner that there was no permit in the eye of law. However, in the meeting held on 04.08.2007, the Regional Transport Authority, Dakshina Kannada (for short, ''RTA'') took up the application for renewal of the permit and passed a resolution on 04.08.2007 to transfer the permit and also to renew the same and the Secretary, RTA was directed to assign timings. This was followed by the order of the Secretary passed on 17.03.2009 re-assigning timings.

This order of transfer and renewal of permit was challenged before the Tribunal by filing R.P. No. 258/2009. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed the revision petition. In the circumstances, aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

Mr. C.V. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there was no application for transfer of permit nor was there any publication of the same in the local newspaper. Therefore, the RTA was not justified in passing the resolution transferring the permit and renewing the same. He further points out that petitioner had locus standi to object for the same and had indeed raised such objection in terms of the provision contained under Rule 83(3) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, read with Form 54.

Mr. Nagesh, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent supports the order passed by the Tribunal and contends that petitioner has no locus standi. He further points out that he had filed objections in the proceedings before the RTA as back as in the year 2005 and subsequently before the Tribunal as well. It is his submission that publication in the newspaper is for the purpose of inviting objections from the persons interested in the permit and in the estate of the deceased and not for the purpose of enabling the person like petitioner to raise objection. At any rate, it is submitted by him that as the petitioner is not in any manner affected by the transfer of permit and its renewal, the Tribunal was right and justified in dismissing the appeal.

Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the order passed by the Tribunal. He makes available the records and contends that application had been indeed submitted though belatedly seeking transfer of permit upon the death of the permit holder.

Having heard the learned Counsel for all the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, I find that the Tribunal has examined the provisions contained under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the fact that the sector operators had no right to maintain objection on the ground that there was no proper application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal has concluded that transfer of permit being a lis between the applicant and the authorities, the sector operators had no right or interest over the permit held by the deceased and therefore they cannot object for the transfer unless they were able to point out that order granting transfer suffered from such error of jurisdiction which had occasioned failure of justice.

It is not in dispute that the person who had sought for transfer of permit held by the deceased was none other than his son. It is also not in dispute that no other person had claimed any interest in the permit raising any objection. The records disclose that an application had been indeed filed seeking transfer. Mere fact that there was no proper publication in the local newspaper would not clothe a stranger or a sector operator with a right to challenge the order transferring permit in favour of the son of the deceased.

As rightly held by the Tribunal unless failure of justice has occasioned and unless the order transferring permit has affected the sector operator, he could not make any grievance. It is not, as if, there is no power vested with the authorities to condone the delay and grant permission for transfer. Therefore, as the applicant who sought for transfer was the son of the deceased and as there were no rival claimants and as the sector operator - petitioner herein had no locus standi to resist the transfer of permit in favour of the legal representative of the deceased, the Tribunal was right and justified in rejecting the contention raised by the writ petitioner. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere in the matter unless the impugned order occasioned failure of justice. There is no failure of justice in the instant case. On mere technical ground, this Court will not interfere at the instance of the person whose right has not been affected. So far as the timings are concerned, the Tribunal has come to the aid of the petitioner and has set aside the orders of the RTA and has remitted the matter for fresh consideration. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.