Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma vs The Secretary on 6 March, 2017
Author: S.Sujatha
Bench: S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.14286/2016 (MV)
BETWEEN:
Smt.Jayamma
W/o Late T.M.Rangaiah
Aged 64 years
R/at Anugraha Nilaya
1st Main Road, 1st Cross
Sapthagiri Extension
Tumkur - 572104. ....Petitioner
(By Sri.M.E.Nagesh, Advocate)
AND:
The Secretary
Regional Transport Authority
Tumkur - 572101. ....Respondent
(By Sri.Vijayakumar.A.Patil, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227
of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order
passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,
Tumkur dated 25.08.2015 at Annexure-D and that of
the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in
Appeal 1051/2015 dated 02.02.2016 at Annexure-E.
Etc.,
2
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is assailing the order passed by the respondent dated 25.08.2015 at Annexure-D and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal' for short) in Appeal No.1051/2015 dated 02.02.2016 (Annexure-E).
2. The petitioner's husband held stage carriage permit No.47/91-92 which was valid up to 14.11.2016. He died on 29.08.2013. The petitioner being a widow of deceased permit holder and successor to the permit, filed the application for transfer of the permit with delay. The respondent issued an endorsement that owing to the delay in filing the application for transfer, the same cannot be entertained. Being aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 89(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short). The 3 Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground, ignorance of law cannot be excused. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placing reliance on Section 82(3) of the Act and the Proviso thereof read with Section 81 of the Act would contend that the Transport Authority is empowered to entertain an application made after the expiry of the period of 3 months provided good and sufficient cause is shown by the applicant. This provision though brought to the notice of the respondent as well as the Tribunal, the same was not considered in the right perspective.
4. The respondent out-rightly rejected the application as not maintainable, ignoring this provision. Similarly, the Tribunal proceeded to affirm the order of the respondent as no satisfactory explanation was offered by the applicant/petitioner to condone the delay of two years in filing the application for transfer. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the sufficient cause shown 4 by the applicant/petitioner for the delay caused in filing the application.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the orders passed by the respondent and the Tribunal, contend that the application had been indeed submitted belatedly without assigning satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking transfer of permit upon the death of the permit holder.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. At the very outset, it emerges that the respondent has failed to consider the provisions of Section 82(3) of the Act and Proviso thereof, I find that the Tribunal though considered the provisions of Section 82 and 83 of the Act, failed to appreciate the sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for the delay caused in filing the application. The approach of the 5 Tribunal is too technical in rejecting the appeal and affirming the order of the respondent. It is well settled legal position that the filing of an application explaining the delay in seeking transfer of permit cannot be thrown out at the very threshold against the clear provision contained in Section 82(3) of the Act read with Section 217A of the Act. The effect and the scope of the provisions cannot be restricted on hyper technicalities. A pragmatic approach is required in the fact situation of the case which has not been considered by the Tribunal in a broader perception. The order of the Tribunal as well as the order of the respondent requires to be set aside by directing the respondent to reconsider the application in terms of Section 82 (3) and 81(2) of the Act read with Section 271A of the Act.
8. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures-D and E are quashed. 6
The respondent shall reconsider the application filed by the petitioner dated 25.08.2015 for transfer of permit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE NC