Linto Augustine vs Avinashkumar and Others

K. Vinod Chandran, J—The petitioner in W.P.(C). No. 1735/2015 is the review petitioner in R.P. No. 1024/2014. For convenience, parties are referred to by their names.

One Pramod Kumar had a regular permit in the route Ernakulam - High Court Junction - Manjapra; in which was endorsed a vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07 BA/4359. The said permit holder died on 03.02.2014. One Amarnath Prabhu as power of attorney holder of Avinash Kumar, is said to have raised a claim for transfer of the regular permit, on the death of the permit holder, for reason of the permit holder having died intestate and without issues. The deceased permit holder is said to be the father''s brother of Avinash Kumar.

It is not clear as to whether the father of Avinash Kumar is claiming for a transfer of the permit or whether the deceased permit holder had other siblings. In any event, Avinash Kumar, through his power of attorney holder applied for temporary permit which was granted by judgment in W.P.(C). No. 31278/2014. It was specifically directed that, if the facts stated by Avinash Kumar in the writ petition are correct and is verifiable from the records, then the temporary permit application has to be considered, if there is no legal impediment. Subsequent to that, the said Avinash Kumar filed another writ petition - W.P.(C) No. 32499/2014, the judgment of which is exhibited as Ext. P6 in W.P.(C). No. 1735/2015. Therein, the claim was for consideration of the transfer of the permit in tune with the directions in P. Bhagyalashmy Vs. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, (2010) 2 ILR (Ker) 560 : (2010) 2 KLJ 39 : (2010) 2 KLT 431 .

The review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment directing consideration of the temporary permit application in WPC 31278/2014. The review petitioner submits that the said Avinash Kumar is not a legal heir of the deceased permit holder. Though Bhagyalakshmy (Supra) considered the issue of whether a legal heirship certificate has to be produced, the dictum laid down in the said decision cannot be misinterpreted to hold that any person; even one who does not legally succeed to the deceased permit holder, would be entitled to seek a transfer of permit, merely on the basis of a relationship evidenced by a relationship certificate.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition however submits that the said question would be one to be considered by the original authority as directed in W.P.(C). No. 32499/2014.

It is to be specifically noticed that the right to seek transfer of a permit on the death of a regular permit holder would arise, only if a person is legally entitled to succeed to the permit holder. A prior possession of the vehicle or a mere relationship cannot confer such right and Bhagyalakshmy (supra) does not go to that extent at all. What has been laid down in Bhagyalakshmy (supra) is only that the authority need not insist on a legal heirship certificate, if the person who seeks transfer, is able to convince the authority otherwise, that he is legally entitled to succeed to the deceased permit holder.

In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the temporary permit application could not have been directed to be considered when the application for consideration of transfer itself was pending and there is a cloud on the right claimed by the person who now seeks transfer. In such circumstance, judgment in W.P.C. No. 31278/2014 would stand reviewed and the writ petition would stand closed, leaving open the remedy of the petitioner to agitate his cause in the application seeking transfer. W.P.(C). No. 1735/2015 raises a challenge against Ext. P5 - the temporary permit issued pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C). No. 32449/2014. No such direction is evident from the said judgment in Ext. P3 and obviously the issuance is on the basis of judgment in W.P.(C). No. 31278/2014, which now stands closed. Since the writ petition seeking consideration of temporary permit application is closed, Ext. P5 produced in W.P.(C). No. 1735/2015 cannot be operated upon. This Court has found that Avinash Kumar would not be entitled to seek for a temporary permit on the strength of the regular permit, which is defaulted for reason of the death of the regular permit holder, nothing survives in the writ petition especially since the temporary permit challenged is valid only till 28.05.2014. W.P. (C). No. 1735/2015 will also stand closed.

The question with respect to the transfer of permit would be considered by the original authority.