Allowed

Rashid N.P. v. the Regional Trasnport Officer

Kerala HC3 Jan 2019WP(C)/41308/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the Regional Transport Officer cannot insist on a permitless certificate for vehicle transfer as it is not authorized under the Motor Vehicles Act. The officer must process the transfer application within three weeks without such demand.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to re-submit transfer application within one week; Respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders within three weeks without insisting on permitless certificate.

Rashid N.P. Vs the Regional Trasnport… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 13TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 41308 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RASHID N.P. AGED 32 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM N.P., HAKEEM VILLA, PALLIKERA, BEKEL, KASARAGOD

¶8

2 VINOD KUMAR T.K., S/O.KANNAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, BENDICHAL, THEKKIL, KASARAGOD

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KASARAGOD-671 123 SMT C.S.SHEEJA, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶14

:-2-:

¶15

J U D G M E N T

¶16

The 1^st petitioner, who is the registered owner

¶17

of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL59/7578, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, along with the 2^nd petitioner, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to forthwith consider Ext.P1 joint application dated 15.11.2018 for transfer of ownership of the said stage carriage from the name

¶18

of the 1^st petitioner to the name of the 2^nd petitioner in the light of the law laid down in Ext.P2 judgment of this Court dated 27.7.2018 in

¶19

W.P.(C)No.25383 of 2018 and endorse the transfer as sought for by the petitioners without insisting for production of permitless/clearance certificate.

¶20

The petitioners submitted Ext.P1 joint application for transfer in Form No.29 and report of transfer in Form No.30, before the respondent

¶21

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶22

:-3-:

¶23

for transfer of ownership of the above vehicle,

¶24

since the 2^nd petitioner resides within the jurisdiction of the respondent. However, the

¶25

respondent refused to receive the requisite fee

¶26

from the petitioners and taken a stand that the Ext.P1 application could be taken to file and the

¶27

transfer of ownership of the vehicle could be endorsed in the name of the 2^nd petitioner only after furnishing a clearance certificate certifying that the vehicle in question is not covered by any permit.

¶28

petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶29

This Court in paragraph 3 of the judgment

¶30

dated 15.2.2017 in W.P.(C).No.1837 of 2017, held as follows:

¶31

“3. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the permitless certificate is insisted since the application for renewal of the permit

¶32

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶33

:-4-:

¶34

in respect of the vehicle is pending. In other words, the stand of the respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to transfer the vehicle during the pendency of the application for renewal of the permit. No provision in the Motor Vehicles Act empowering the Registering Authority to insist a permitless certificate of the vehicle from the Regional Transport Authority concerned for effecting transfer in respect of a vehicle is brought to the notice of this Court. Likewise, no provision interdicting the sale of the vehicle during the pendency of an application for renewal of the permit issued in respect of the same is also brought to the notice of this Court. The question whether the petitioner is entitled to pursue the application for renewal without there being a vehicle is a matter for the Regional Transport Authority concerned to consider at the relevant point of time. So long as there is no legal impediment for the petitioner to sell his vehicle, the impugned order, to the extent it directs the petitioner to produce the permit-less certificate, is unsustainable. In the

¶35

circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the interim order passed by this Court on 20.01.2017 directing consideration of Exts.P2

¶36

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶37

:-5-:

¶38

and P2(a) applications without insisting the permit-less certificate is made absolute.”

¶39

The law laid down by this Court in the

¶40

judgment dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No.1837 of 2017

¶41

is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 23.03.2017 in W.A.No.568 of 2017

¶42

by holding that, the Regional Transport Officer

¶43

cannot insist upon getting a permitless certificate, which is not so provided in the Motor Vehicles Act and which does not subserve the

¶44

purpose of the said Act. In the absence of authority to demand such a certificate, the demand would clearly be unreasonable and ultravires. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said judgment read thus;

¶45

“2. It is submitted on behalf of the Regional Transport Officer in appeal that if the view as taken by the learned Single Judge is allowed to stand, then large number of persons may misuse the same. They would have applied for renewal of permits or for grant of permits during pendency of which we may sell the vehicle. This should not be permitted. He further points out that if

¶46

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶47

:-6-:

¶48

the vehicle is transferred during the pendency of application or renewal thereof, those permits or renewal applications ought not be processed. 3. We should not concern ourselves with those aspects for the simple reason that if the position is that upon transfer of a vehicle, the application for renewal thereof becomes infructuous. Then law would take its own course. But the Regional Transport Officer cannot insist upon getting a permit-less certificate, which is not so provided in the Act and which does not subserve the purpose of the Act. In the absence of authority to demand such a certificate, the demand would clearly be unreasonable and ultravires. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge” .

¶49

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶50

(i) Within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioners shall re-submit Ext.P1 application for transfer of ownership made in respect of stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-59/7578, after remitting requisite fee.

¶51

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶52

:-7-:

¶53

(ii) On receipt of such application for transfer, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment dated 15.12.2017 in W.P.(C)No.1837 of 2017, which is affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 23.03.2017 in W.A.No.568 of 2017, without insisting for a permitless certificate/clearance certificate, with notice to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶56

ami/3.1.19

¶57

W.P.(C)No.41308 of 2018

¶58

:-8-:

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM 29 & 30 DATED 15.11.2018 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/07/2018 IN WPC NO.25383 OF 2018

Rashid N.P. v. the Regional Trasnport Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashid N.P. v. the Regional Trasnport Officer

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

The Maneed Service Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.E59 Vs the Jointe Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Jabeena Faizal Vs the General Manager, Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank

Jijith Vs State of Kerala

B.R. Raju Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Election Commission

Sabu Joy Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Mr. Abdul Salam, Vs the Keala State Beeverages Corporation Ltd.