Madras High Court
A.Jameela Beevi (Died) vs The Regional Transport Authority on 25 October, 2024
C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
and C.M.P.Nos.878 and 879 of 2022
1.A.Jameela Beevi (Died)
2.Syed Ibramsha Abubakkar
(sole petitioner died. P-2 is brought
on record as LR of the deceased
sole petitioner viz., A.Jameela Beevi
vide Court order dated 25.10.2024
made in CMP No.24129 of 2024 in
CRP No.162 of 2022) ... Petitioners
-vs-
1.The Regional Transport Authority
Tiruchirapalli.
2.Tmt.Rajathi @ Amsa Banu
W/o Syed Shahul Hameed
3.M.Saira Banu
4.A.Alima Banu
5.Mohammed Saleem
6.Bavi Ahamed
7.F.Thayira Banu
(Sole petitioner died. Respondents 3 to 7
are brought on record as LRs of the deceased
sole petitioner viz., A.Jameela Beevi vide
Court order dated 25.10.2024 made in
CMP No.24129 of 2024 in CRP No.162 of
2022 by VLNJ) ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 13
C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set
aside the order passed by the Learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V.
Appeal No.77/2012 dated 20.12.2021 rejecting the appellants application for
transfer of permits in respect of stage carriage TN-31/D-5517 plying on the route
Andavar Koil to Nangavaram and spare bus bearing Registration No.TN-45/L-9945
and allow this CRP with costs.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Hariharan
for Mrs.Radha Gopalan
For Respondents : Mr.Sathish, Government Advocate-for R1
Mr.R.Thiagarajan for R2
Ms.Bhargavi Gopalan for RR 3 to 7
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in M.V.A.No.77 of 2012.
2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. One Abubacker seems to have been a bus operator of several vehicles. The subject matter of this dispute relates to the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-31-D-5517 plying between Andavarkoil to Nangavaram and a spare bus bearing Registration No.TN- 45-L-9945. Abubacker passed away on 18.08.2011 giving rise to the present dispute.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
3. The civil revision petitioner is the wife of E.Abubacker. The objector / second respondent is the daughter of Abubacker. On the death of Abubacker on 18.08.2011, as required by law, an intimation was given to the transport authorities on 25.08.2011. An application was filed for transfer of permit invoking Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. The process by which such an application has to be considered is governed under Rule 214 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
4. At the time of filing the application under Section 82(3) read with Rule 214, all the other legal representatives of the deceased Abubacker tendered no- objection for the transfer in the name of the civil revision petitioner. However, the second respondent objected to the said transfer. Consequently, a hearing was conducted by the Regional Transport Authority at Tiruchirapalli. He rejected the same by way of his proceedings dated 09.03.2012. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the civil revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Chennai in Motor Vehicle Appeal No.77 of 2012. After the appeal had been kept pending for nearly a decade, it came to be dismissed on 20.12.2021. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision petition has come up before this Court.
5. I heard Mr.Hariharan for Mrs.Radha Gopalan for the civil revision petitioner, Mr.R.Thiagarajan for the second respondent and Mrs.Bhargavi Gopalan for the respondents 3 to 7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
6. The narration of the aforesaid facts would go to show that Abubacker had married Jameela Beevi and the wedlock produced three sons and four daughters. At the time of filing of the application for transfer before the Regional Transport Authority, six of the offsprings from the wedding had granted their consent. It is only the second respondent who had opposed the same. The objection of the second respondent is that Abubacker had executed a "WILL" in her favour on 20.06.2011 and since she has succeeded to the the permit by virtue of the said "WILL", she is entitled to the permit. On the basis of the said "WILL", she gave an objection on 02.01.2012 and followed it up with a written argument to the same effect on 07.01.2012.
7. The learned Regional Transport Authority at Trichy went through the testament and came to the conclusion that as the "WILL" is not clear on the transfer of permit of the buses in question, he rejected the same. He further came to a conclusion and I feel rightly so, that the authorities created under the Motor Vehicle Act viz., the Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are not entitled to give any declaration with respect to the "WILL". This is too basic, but requires confirmation in this order. When a "WILL" is projected, the genuineness of the "WILL" or otherwise would have to be concluded only by a Civil Court and not by the authorities created under a Statute. This is because, the scope of enquiry conducted by them is circumscribed by the four corners of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022 Statute under which they function. The authorities created under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot deal with the issues relating to a "WILL" because the document may relate to the motor vehicles in question as well as other properties of the deceased testator. Therefore, the authorities had rightly left the "WILL" for decision by the civil Court.
8. The Regional Transport Authority, after referring to Rule 214(1) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, came to a conclusion that since no-objection had not been obtained from all the legal heirs, the permit cannot be issued in favour of the deceased civil revision petitioner.
9. On appeal, the very same issue was tried by the State Transport Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority referring to the position of law that a permit cannot be termed as a property which can be inherited by succession, held that as the civil revision petitioner had not obtained no-objection from the second respondent, the appeal is untenable and therefore rejected the same.
10. The issue of interpretation of Section 82(3) and Rule 214 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been considered by me earlier in a judgment in Kavitha Ananthakrishnan -vs- M.Harikrishnan (C.R.P.No.3869 of 2023 dated 25.07.2024). I held that the physical possession of the bus does not matter when it comes to transfer of permit under Rule 214. It brooks no exception where a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022 "WILL" is projected or if any other claim is made by the contesting parties. Rule 214 demands a no-objection certificate from all the heirs of the deceased permit holder and if the said no-objection certificate is not tendered, then the authorities whose powers are statutory in nature are bound to reject the application seeking transfer of permit. This is because, if the Statute and the Statutory Rules demand a process to be done in a particular way, it has to be done in that particular and not in any other way.
11. Mrs.Radha Gopalan contends that the civil revision petitioner has the title to the two vehicles and she, by virtue of being the wife of the deceased Abubacker, has succeeded to his estate. That too is not an issue which can be gone into by me in a civil revision petition arising out of a proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The said issue would have to be gone into only by the jurisdictional Civil Court in Trichy. In fact, the second respondent had already instituted a suit for partition so far as other properties are concerned in O.S.No.172 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mahila Court at Trichy. It was with respect to the other vehicles and landed property and has obtained a preliminary decree. The said decree does not cover the permits in question.
12. Mrs.Radha Gopalan also argued that Rule 214 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules had been struck down by the Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha in his order dated W.P.Nos.620, 621 and 14801 of 2007 dated 30.04.2010. The learned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022 counsel presented the judgment for the perusal of this Court. I carefully went through the said order. The learned Judge, at the time of disposal of the said writ petitions, for the sake of convenience, had clubbed three writ petitions. The prayer in W.P.No.14801 of 2007 did seek for declaration that Rule 214(1) of Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 is unconstitutional. However, a detailed perusal of the judgment and a consequential analysis shows that the learned Judge had no occasion to deal with the constitutional validity of Rule 214 of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, the said judgment is not a precedent for the proposition that was urged by Mrs.Radha Gopalan. I have to point out that the very petitioner had moved a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 214 of Motor Venicle Rules, 1989 in W.P.No.9965 of 2012 and was successful in obtaining an order of status quo. With respect to the permit in issue, I am not going into the issue of constitutional validity of the said Rule, as that is a subject matter of a separate writ petition.
13. In the light of the above discussion, I am not in a position to come to the rescue of Mr.R.Thiagarajan to hold that the second respondent has succeeded to the vehicles by virtue of the "WILL" dated 20.06.2011. The issue whether the second respondent has succeeded to the permit or whether the deceased Jameela Beevi has succeeded to the estate would necessarily have to be decided by the Civil Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
14. At this stage, I have to take into consideration the consistent view taken by this Court where there is a dispute over who succeeds to the permit. The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.Ratnam had taken view in W.P.No.9533 of 1984 dated 11.04.1984 that, if on account of the dispute between the parties the permit is not transferred, then the public "WILL" be put to loss because it is the public who are utilizing the services of the vehicle which is plying under the disputed permit. He further pointed out that in case the permit is not exploited by any of the members of the family, it would be rendered useless. I have to take note of the position of law that has changed after the Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992. By virtue of Section 6(4) of the said legislation, the State Legislature has debarred the Regional Transport Authority to issue new permits under the Motor Vehicles Act 1998. The liberalised code under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 does not apply to the State of Tamil Nadu on account of the special legislation under Act 41 of 1992. The said legislation had received the consent of the President of India as required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. It is that legislation which prevails in this State.
15. When that being the situation, if I were to merely dismiss the revision without passing any orders with respect to the exploitation of the permit pending disposal of the suit that have to be filed, not only the family of the civil revision petitioner and the second respondent would be affected, but also the public at large would be affected by virtue of the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
16. At this juncture, I have to point out that the view taken by Justice V.Ratnam in Thandavarayan Chettiar's case has been followed by this Court in K.Vediammal and Others (vs) Regional Transport Authority, Dharmapuri and Others (1989 Writ LR 391) . Recently my brother Justice S.Sounthar had also followed the said principle in W.P.Nos.162 and 6041 of 2022 dated 25.07.2023. This points out that the view taken by Justice V.Ratnam under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act 1939 continues to hold good even under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988.
17. Taking into consideration that one branch of the family would alone be enjoying the benefits that accrue by virtue of the usage of the permit, I called upon Mr.Hariharan to file an affidavit of Mrs.Jameela Beevi that she "WILL" make some interim provision for the second respondent. She filed an affidavit dated 30.09.2024 stating that from January 2022 onwards she would pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent, month on month, till the disposal of the suit for declaration of title with respect to the vehicles in question is presented and till the said proceedings attains finality. Unfortunately, Mrs.Jameela Beevi passed away soon after filing the affidavit and before this Court could pass orders. Therefore, I called upon Syed Ibramsha Abubacker, the brother of the second respondent and son of Jameela Beevi and Abubacker to file an affidavit on the similar lines. He has also filed an affidavit of undertaking stating that he "WILL" pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month from January 2022 to October 2024 and "WILL" present a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022 suit within three months from the date of disposal of this revision and that he "WILL" continue to make the said payment pending the outcome of the suit.
18. Mr.R.Thiagarajan argues that his client is not "WILL"ing to receive the said amount. This is not a case where I am passing the orders by consent. The arrangement was proposed by me on account of the fact that, in case I dismiss the revision, the permit "WILL" be rendered useless. In the event that Jameela Beevi succeeds in the suit or Syed Ibramsha Abubacker succeeds in the suit or even if the second respondent succeeds in the suit for declaration of title on the basis of the "WILL", there "WILL" be no permit for the family to seek transfer of.
19. In the light of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by the following orders:
(a) The present civil revision petitioner Syed Ibramsha Abubacker or the second respondent should present a suit for declaration of their title with respect to the permit in issue within a period of three months from today.
(b) In case both the parties do not present the suit, then the benefit of the exploitation of the permit by the civil revision petitioner "WILL"
not continue. To make it abundantly clear, if the suit is not filed within three months, the Regional Transport Authority need not extend the permit of the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
(c) The civil revision petitioner Syed Ibramsha Abubacker shall clear the arrears of Rs.3,10,000/- from January 2022 to October 2024 within a period of two months from today. Pending disposal of the suit, Syed Ibramsha Abubacker shall pay without any default, a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the second respondent.
(d) It is open to the second respondent either to file an independent suit or file a counter claim in the suit that might be presented by Syed Ibramsha Abubacker, seeking title on the basis of the "WILL" dated 20.06.2011.
(e) If there is any default in payment of the above one monthly amount or the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,10,000/-, the Regional Transport Authority shall, taking note of the default, refuse to extend the permit on its expiry.
(f) The Regional Transport Authority shall continue the arrangement that he has created for issuance of temporary permit in the name of Syed Ibramsha Abubacker.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022
(g) The aforesaid arrangement made in this order is subject to the orders that would be passed by this Court regarding the constitutional validity of Rule 214 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
20. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.10.2024 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No KST To The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 13 C.R.P.No.162 of 2022 V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
KST C.R.P.No.162 of 2022 25.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 13