Partly allowed

Sri E Amarnath v. the Regional Transport Authority

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2022WP/3923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a stage carriage permit transferred to a successor of a deceased holder after a renewal was erroneously issued in the deceased's name, the Court quashed the Appellate Tribunal order that set aside the transfer.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal order setting aside the transfer order dated 20.05.2019 is set aside; the Tribunal order setting aside the renewal is confirmed.

Sri E Amarnath Vs the Regional Transport Authority — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.3923 OF 2022 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI.E.AMARNATH, S/O LATE H.ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NO.270, JOSEPH NAGAR, TANK BUND ROAD, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 201. REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER, SRI.MOHAMMED ZABIULLA S/O SRI.MOHAMMED SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PROP: MERCHANT TRANSPORT, KOBBARIPET, HOSADURGA, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 727.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.PUTTIGE R.RAMESH SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.MOHAMED SUBHANULLA SHARIEF C., ADVADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SOWLANGA ROAD, JAYANAGAR, SHIMOGA - 577 201. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SOWLANGA ROAD, JAYANAGAR, SHIMOGA - 577 201.

¶14

¶15

SMT.BHARATHI W/O. LATE V.RAMAKRISHNA, BUS OPERATOR, LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SHARAVATHI NAGAR, SHIMOGA.

¶16

SMT.LAVAYNA W/O SRI.N.PRAKASH, PROP: SRI.MAHADESHWARA MOTORS, SHANTHINAGAR, B.R.PROJECTS, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI.R.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; R-4 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO R.P.NO.15/2019 AND 65/2019 DATED 22.07.2021 IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2017 AND 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.05.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-S; AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner's father was granted with stage carriage permit for the subject route on 08.09.1981 and he died on 16.11.2011.

¶23

¶24

The original permit holder had filed an application for renewal of permit on 08.09.2011 and he died on 16.11.2011 and the permit issued in his favour was renewed from 09.09.2011 to 08.09.2016. Such being the case, the petitioner filed an application in the name of the deceased permit holder on 02.03.2016 with respondent No.2. Permit was renewed from 09.09.2016 to 08.09.2021 in the name of the deceased permit holder. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for transfer of the permit on 22.03.2019 as specified under Section 82 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

¶25

Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 20.05.2019 transferring the stage carriage permit in the name of the petitioner by imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- as specified under Section 86(5) of the Act.

¶26

When things stood thus, respondent No.3 filed a Revision Petition No.15/2019 challenging the renewal of stage carriage permit in favour of the deceased permit holder and also Revision Petition

¶27

¶28

No.65/2019 challenging the order permitting transfer of the permit in favour of the present petitioner herein.

¶29

The Appellate Tribunal by the impugned orders dated 22.07.2021 allowed the revision petitions filed by respondent No.3 and set aside the order renewing the permit in the name of dead person and also the transfer of the permit in favour of the petitioner. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶30

Sri.Puthige R.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Mohamed Subhanulla Sharief C., learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions:

¶31

Though there is no provision for renewing the permit in favour of dead person, however Section 82 of the Act specifies that upon death of the original permit holder, the successor can maintain an application for transfer and the application though filed belatedly by the petitioner, same has been considered and an order is passed transferring the permit by imposing penalty as

¶32

¶33

specified under Section 86(5) of the Act. Hence, he submits that the impugned order so far it relates to transferring the permit in favour of the present petitioner does not suffer from any illegality and the Tribunal ignoring Sections 82 and 86(5) of the Act has erroneously passed the impugned order and the same is untenable.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel

¶35

appearing for respondent No.3 submits that there is no provision in the Act to renew the permit in favour of a dead person and the Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order setting aside the renewal of permit in favour of the dead person. He further submits that the petitioner having obtained renewal of permit by playing fraud and misrepresentation is not entitled for transfer of permit as specified under Section 82 of the Act. He further submits that the application for transfer was filed after seven years from the date of death of the original permit holder and the application filed beyond the time specified under Section 82 of the Act was not maintainable. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for

¶36

¶37

transfer of permit issued in favour of his deceased father.

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would reiterate the submissions made by learned Counsel for respondent No.3 and in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for transfer of permit.

¶39

I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶40

It is undisputed that the stage carriage permit was renewed in favour of the dead person and there is no provision for renewal of permit in favour of a dead person. In the absence of any provision for renewal of the permit in favour of the dead person, the Appellate Tribunal has rightly passed the order setting aside the renewal of permit granted in favour of the deceased father of the petitioner.

¶41

Section 82(5) of the Act provides for transfer of permit when the holder of the permit dies

¶42

¶43

and the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may for period of three months use the permit as if it had been granted to himself.

¶44

Section 82(3) of the Act specifies that

¶45

transport authority may on an application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of the permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding the possession of vehicle covered by the permit and proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 82 of the Act specifies that the authority may entertain an application made after expiry of the said period of three months, if it is satisfied that the application was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.

¶46

The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19946/2007 c/w W.P.No.19947/2007 and W.P.No.11654/2009 disposed of on 01.06.2009 at paragraph 22 has held as follows:

¶47

"22. Having regard to the observations of this Court and the Apex

¶48

¶49

Court supra and applying them to the facts of these cases, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner has not suffered any legal grievance or lost any right or liberty due to the orders of the KSTAT & RTA and hence have no locusstandi to maintain these petitions. It cannot be disputed that in the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the 3rd respondent is entitled to have the cancelled permit restored, transferred and motor vehicle replaced by an order and endorsement on the permit. The direction to pay compounding fee to restore a cancelled permit in the exercise of discretion by the KSTAT & RTA, cannot be said to be illegal or to have occasioned a legal injury to the petitioners."

¶50

14. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in

¶51

W.P.No.15603/2014 disposed of on 28.11.2014 at paragraph 9 has held as follows:

¶52

"9. 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 operatorpetitioner herein had no locus standi to resist the transfer of permit in favour of the legal representative of the deceases, the Tribunal was right and justified in rejecting the contention raised by the writ petitioner.

¶53

¶54

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."

¶55

Even assuming as on the date of filing of the application for transfer, the permit issued in favour of the dead person had expired or stood cancelled by operation of law, the petitioner was entitled for transfer of permit as specified under Section 82 of the Act and though the application was submitted belatedly, the authority on satisfaction that the petitioner was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified may transfer the permit in favour of the successor of the vehicle which was covered under the permit.

¶56

¶57

Hence, the authority concerned by

¶58

exercising power under Section 82 of the Act has transferred the permit in favour of the petitioner and the said transfer is in accordance with the provision contained under Section 82 of the Act. The transfer of permit has not resulted in causing any legal injury to the Respondent No.3 and on mere technicality, the petitioner cannot be deprived of transfer of permit in his favour when it has not occasioned in failure of justice. Hence, the Appellate Tribunal ignoring this aspect has set aside the order transferring the permit in favour of the petitioner which is contrary to Section 82 of the Act.

¶59

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

Writ Petition is allowed in part .

¶62

The impugned order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision Petition No.15/2019 is confirmed.

¶63

The impugned order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Transport Appellate

¶64

¶65

Tribunal in Revision Petition No.65/2019 is hereby set aside.

¶66

It is needless to state that the petitioner is permitted to operate in accordance with law in the light of the order dated 28.03.2022 passed by respondent No.2.

¶67

This order is passed under peculiar circumstances of the facts of the case and the same shall not be treated as precedent.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69

pgg

Sri E Amarnath v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri E Amarnath v. the Regional Transport Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sreedhar R Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

K S Swarna Gowramma Vs Nanjappa @ Nanjaiah

Mr. Mohammed Rafeeq Vs State of Karnataka

Davangere Sugar Company Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K.A. Lingaraju Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

A K Ramaprakash Vs the Regional Transport Authority