IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13438 of 2008(Y)
1. V.S.SUDHEESH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY,
3. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.I.DINESH MENON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008 - Y
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for quashing Ext.
P6 and P10 and to direct the 2nd respondent to reconsider the
proceedings which led to the aforesaid impugned orders.
2. The main point that is canvassed by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that Ext. P6 which was confirmed by the STAT in
Ext. P10 judgment is vitiated for violation of the principles of
natural justice for the reason that the petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity of hearing before Ext. P6 order was passed.
3. For deciding the correctness of the contention raised, a
brief examination of the facts is necessary. Ext. P1 is the regular
permit granted in respect of stage carriage KL 8 AA/4316 in favour
of Smt. K. Vimala, Kattappurath House, Kolazhy subject to
settlement of timing. The grantee did not produce the current
records and timings were also not settled. While so, Smt. Vimala
W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008
-2-
expired on 20.4.2007 and the petitioner claims that he had
succeeded to her estate on the strength of a will dated 29.3.2006
executed by the deceased. Copy of the will is not produced in this
writ petition.
4. It is not in dispute that the death of the grantee was not
intimated to the 2nd respondent as required under Section 82(2) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Ultimately, without being aware of
the death of Smt. Vimala, timing was scheduled and permit was also
issued on 21.7.2007. Still later, on 31.7.2007 the petitioner
submitted an application claiming to be the legatee of Smt. Vimala
and sought transfer of the permit in his favour.
5. On receipt of the request and coming to know of the death
of Smt. Vimala and that it was after her death the permit was issued
in the name of the deceased, the 2nd respondent proposed to take
action against the permit under Section 86(d) and issued Ext. P2
show cause notice to the petitioner. The allegations in Ext. P2 are
that the permit was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and the
the petitioner had also tried to transfer the permit hiding the death
of the permit holder. Ext. P4 is the reply submitted by the
W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008
-3-
petitioner. After the show cause notice was issued, the 2nd
respondent in its meeting held on 15.2.2008, included in the
agenda a proposal to take action against the permit.
6. At that stage the petitioner had filed a writ petition before
this Court as W.P.(C) No. 5899/08 for directing the Secretary, RTA to
place the application for transfer submitted by the petitioner before
the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, despite receipt of
notice from this Court the proposal to take action against the permit
was considered by the RTA, and the RTA proceeded to pass Ext. P6,
cancelling the permit since Smt. Vimala had expired prior to the
issue of the permit and that the permit was obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation. Consequently, the application for transfer of
the permit submitted by the petitioner was also rejected.
7. Petitioner filed appeals before the STAT and the appeals
were heard and dismissed by Ext. P10. It is in this background the
writ petition is filed with the prayers mentioned above. As noticed
the contention raised is that the RTA ought to have given an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in pursuance to Ext. P3, the
agenda item resulting in Ext. P6.
W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008
-4-
8. It is true that when a permit is cancelled the permit holder
is entitled to be heard and this position is not in dispute. However,
the question whether in the facts as stated above the petitioner is
entitled to be heard. The proposal in Ext. P3 agenda item was to
take action against the permit in respect of stage carriage KL 88 AA
4316. To be affected by the cancellation of a permit, one should
either be a permit holder or be entitled to succeed to the permit
holder. Admittedly the permit in question was granted in favour of
Smt. Vimala on 14.6.2006 and was issued on 21.7.2007. Much
prior to the issue of the permit Smt. Vimala expired on 20.4.2007.
Under Section 82(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act where the holder of a
permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle
covered by the permit may, within 30 days inform the transport
authority which granted the permit and his intention to use the
permit. In this case admittedly Smt. Vimala expired on 20.4.2007
and though the petitioner claims to have succeeded to the estate of
the deceased by virtue of the will dated 29.3.2006, the petitioner
has no case that the death was intimated to the 2nd respondent.
Therefore, the permit was issued to a person who was no longer
W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008
-5-
alive. If that be so, the permit issued is nonest in the eye of law.
9. The further question would be, when permit was thus
obtained by the petitioner without disclosing the death of the
grantee, whether the petitioner is entitled to be heard when action is
proposed to be taken against the permit. In my view, when the
permit is nonest, the petitioner can have no claim as against such a
nonest permit. If that be so, when action is proposed to be taken
against such a nonest permit, petitioner who is a stranger can have
no claim for notice of the agenda or for an opportunity of hearing.
That apart, natural justice can be claimed by a person who is clean
in his motives. In this case, after the death of the permit holder,
timing schedule was got settled and the respondents were led to
issue the permit in the name of the deceased. All these have been
done without disclosing the death of the permit holder which was a
fact well within the knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the
petitioner having conducted the service in a fraudulent and
dishonest manner, cannot insist on the compliance of natural
justice.
10. Apart from all these, want of notice in pursuance to Ext. P3
W.P.(C) No. 13438 OF 2008
-6-
is not an issue that was canvassed before the appellate authority. A
reading of Ext. P10 judgment shows that the petitioner did not have
such a grievance when the appeal was heard. If that be so, there is
absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be permitted to urge
this contention raised for the first time in these proceedings.
Writ petition lacks merit and is only to be dismissed and I do
so.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-