JUDGMENT
K.A. Nayar, J.
1. This Original Petition is to quash Ext. P3 notice of the 2nd respondent Under a family settlement, two vehicles along win the permits, viz. stage carriages KRP 7461 and KLH 3283, were decided to be allotted to the brother and sister-in-law of the petitioner. Therefore, joint applications were filed for the transfer. The Regional Transport Authority, at its meetings held on 10-9-1991 and 22-9-1991, allowed the transfer. Exts. P1 and P2 are the orders. Ext P1 says that, “Heard the applicant No objections. Transfer of permit is granted.” That was in respect of the vehicle KLH 3283. Similarly, Ext. P2 also says, “Heard the applicant. No objections. Transfer of permit is granted.” That was in respect of the vehicle KRP 7461, under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, transfer of permit is allowed with the permission of the Regional Transport Authority which granted the permit. Section 82(1) reads as follows:
(1) Save as provided in Sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit.
Rule 178 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules details the procedure for transfer of permit and it runs as follows:
178, Permit — Transfer of — (1) When the holder of a permit desires to transfer the permit to some other person under Sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act he shall, together with the person to whom he desires to make the transfer, make a joint application in writing to the Transport Authority by which the permit was issued setting forth the reasons for the proposed transfer. The fee for transfer of permit shall be the same as prescribed for the grant or renewal of permits under Rule 164.
(2) On receipt of an application under Sub-rule (1) the Transport Authority may require the holder of the permit and the other party to state in writing whether any premium, payment or other consideration arising out of the transfer is to pass or has passed between them and the nature and amount of any such premium, payment or other consideration.
(3) Without prejudice to any other penalty to which the parties may be liable, any transfer of permit ordered upon an application which the Transport Authority is subsequently satisfied as false in respect of the matter specified in Sub-rule (2) or in respect of any other material particular shall be void. What is a material particular for purposes of this sub-rule shall be decided by the Transport Authority in its discretion.
(4) The Transport Authority may summon both the parties to the application for the transfer of a permit to appear before it and may, if it deems fit, deal with the application as if it were an application for a permit
(5)(a) If the Transport Authority is satisfied that the transfer of a permit may properly be made, it shall call upon the holder of the permit in writing to surrender the permit within seven days of receipt of the order:
Provided that a stage carriage permit for a route of 50 Kms. or less held by an individual is transferable only to an individual.
(b) Upon receipt of the permit, the transport authority shall cancel the particulars of the holder thereon and endorse particulars of the transferee and shall return the permit to the transferee.
(c) If a permit has been endorsed or extended under the provisions of these rules, the endorsement or extension shall cause to have effect on the date of transfer of the permit unless the Transport Authority which granted the endorsement or extension directs that it shall be continued.
(d) The fee for application for continuance of endorsement and of extension of validity of permit shall be the same as prescribed for endorsement or extension of validity of permits.
(6)(a) A fee of rupees ten shall be charged for the transfer of a permit on the death of the holder under Sub-section (2) of Section 82 of the Act.
(b) If in such case, permit has been endorsed or extended under the provisions of these rules the endorsement or extension shall cease to have effect on the date of transfer unless the Transport Authority which granted the endorsement or extension directs that it shall be continued:
Provided that the fees prescribed in Sub-rule (1), Sub-rule (5)(d) and Clause (a) of this sub-rule for the transfer of permit or continuance of endorsement or extension of validity of a permit, as the case may be, in respect of a motorised cycle-rickshaw, shall be 50 per cent of the respective fees.
(7) Before ordering transfer under this rule, the Transport Authority shall make such enquiries as it may consider necessary to satisfy itself that the transfer is bonafide. If after the enquiry the Transport Authority finds that the transfer asked for is not bonafide, it shall not order the transfer.
On receipt of the joint application, the Transport Authority shall make such enquiries as it may consider necessary to satisfy itself that the transfer is bonafide and if, after enquiry, the Transport Authority finds that the transfer asked for is not bonafide, it shall not order the transfer. In this case, presumably after satisfying that the transfer asked for is bonafide, the transfer has been ordered. There was no objection for transfer from any quarter and the Regional Transport Authority allowed the transfer. Under Rule 131 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority has a duty to implement the decisions of the Regional Transport Authority. R. 131 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules says that:
All decisions of the Regional Transport Authority shall be given effect to by the Secretary expeditiously.
Instead of implementing the decision, the Secretary issued Ext. P3 notice inviting the petitioner for a personal hearing to enquire into the complaint filed by the Secretary, District Motor Transport Employees Union. The Union ought to have raised their objections, if any, earlier before the Regional Transport Authority. There was no objection before the authority against the transfer of permit. The Secretary/the Regional Transport Officer, has no power to entertain any objection after the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. Quasi judicial authorities have no power to review the order unless power is specifically granted. In H.C. Suman v. Rehabilitation Ministry Employees’ Co-op. Society Ltd. New Delhi the Supreme Court held as follows:
…It is settled law that a quasi judicial order once passed and having become final cannot be reviewed by the authority passing that order unless power of review has been specifically conferred.
To the same effect are the decisions reported in Tikararn v. Mundikota Shikshan Prasarak Mandal (1984) 65 FJR 321 and Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (U.P.) . This position is now well settled.
2. Counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that there is only a notice evidenced by Ext. P3 and all the contentions available to the petitioner can be urged before the 2nd respondent However, the notice Ext P3 issued by the Regional Transport Officer, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 121 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, calling the petitioner for personal hearing, is not one issued according to law. That notice ought to have been issued before the decision was taken. After the decision for transfer is taken by the Regional Transport Authority, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, who is the executing authority, has no power to afford a personal hearing to any objector against the transfer. The concluded decision cannot be re-opened by the Secretary by giving an opportunity to be heard to the objectors. If the objector has any grievance, it is for him to seek his remedies before the appropriate Forum.
3. Though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf on the 1st and 2nd respondents, the file of the Regional Transport Authority was made available for my perusal by the Government Pleader. It is stated that the decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority to transfer the vehicle and there were no objections against the transfer. Therefore, the transfer of permit was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority. It is stated that a letter dated 13-9-1991 was received from the Secretary, District Motor Transport Employees Union, objection to the transfer of ownership of the vehicles and hearing notices were issued to the objector and the petitioner for a personal hearing on 11-11-1991 as mentioned in Ext P3.
4. It is admitted, that the transfer of the permits in respect of the two vehicles was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority and there was no objection at the time when the transfer of permits was allowed. Ext P3 notice is, therefore, without authority of law. Though ordinarily writ petition is not maintainable at notice stage, if notice is issued without authority of law and without jurisdiction, a writ will be issued to quash the same without leaving the parties to the procedure under the special enactment It has been so held by the Supreme Court in the decisions reported in State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer . I, therefore, quash Ext P3 notice which is issued by the 2nd respondent without the authority of law. As there is valid decision for transfer of the permit, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority is directed to implement the decision of the Regional Transport Authority, viz. Exts. P1 and P2, without further delay. The transfer of permits will be without prejudice to the 3rd respondent’s right to take appropriate action, if so advised, against the transfer.
The Original Petition is allowed as above.