IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 694 of 2009()
1. T.K.MANZOOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
3. PUSHPANGADHAN,MENATH PARAMBIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.FAYAZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :24/03/2009
O R D E R
P.R.Raman & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.
==================================
W.A.No.694 of 2009
==================================
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J.
1.The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed
WP(C)No.8003 of 2009, being aggrieved by the
refusal on the part of the Secretary, RTA in not
transferring the permit to the petitioner covered
by vehicle KL-8V/5617 running in the route
Mattichoor-Thrissur. According to the Secretary,
another vehicle KL-09K/9463, which was running in
the route, had committed default in welfare fund
dues to the second respondent and hence, unless
the dues are cleared, transfer of permit cannot
be allowed. The learned single Judge held that,
as the welfare fund is a charge on the vehicle,
the respondents are entitled to refuse
endorsement.
WA694/09
-:2:-
2.The appellant contends that, when the welfare
fund dues are in arrears, true, by virtue of an
amendment, there is a charge on the vehicle.
But, here, the vehicle in question KL-09k/9463 is
the vehicle in respect of which dues are in
arrears. What is sought to be transferred is
only the permit and now he is running with a new
vehicle, KL-8V/5617. In so far as the vehicle
to be run in the route, with the permit granted
to KL-09K/9463, is concerned, the fact that
there is any arrears in respect of the vehicle
KL-09K/9463, cannot be a ground to refuse
transfer of permit. But it is fairly submitted
by the appellant that the vehicle KL-09K/9463 is
now in garage. Therefore, even if we direct that
the vehicle KL-09K/9463 over which there is a
charge in respect of the welfare fund dues, it
cannot be disputed that the said vehicle cannot
be proceeded for realisation of the dues. In
such circumstances, the learned counsel offers to
WA694/09
-:3:-
furnish bank guarantee for an amount of
Rs.21,000/-, which is alleged to be the arrears
of the vehicle KL-09K/9463. According to him,
even though there may be a charge on the vehicle,
KL-09K/9463, the primary liability is always on
the employer, namely erstwhile registered owner
of the vehicle KL-09K/9463, since, the dues now
in arrears is prior to the transfer.
3.We heard the learned Government Pleader. We find
force in the contention. Hence, we direct that,
the Secretary, RTA, shall accord permission for
the transfer of the permit and replacement of the
vehicle with a new one. The petitioner shall
furnish a bank guarantee for Rs.21,000/- valid
for one year. The second respondent may proceed
to recover the dues in arrears, if any, in
respect of the vehicle KL-09K/9463 by proceeding
against the erstwhile registered owner, namely
the third respondent. However, in case the
WA694/09
-:4:-
amount could not be realised, they can invoke the
bank guarantee after nine months. In case the
amount is realised, the bank guarantee will stand
cancelled.
Writ appeal is allowed as above.
P.R.Raman, Judge.
P.S.Gopinathan, Judge.
sl.