Madras High Court
R.V.Janarthanan vs The Regional Transport Authority on 6 December, 2021
Author: R.Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P. No.21703 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
W.P. No.21703 of 2021
and
W.M.P.No.22883 of 2021
R.V.Janarthanan ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Regional Transport Authority
Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Regional Transport Officer
Arni, Tiruvannamalai.
3.R.V.Kuppusamy
4. P.Janaki
5. R.Ramani
6. S.Sulochana
7. V.Latha
8. R.V.Lakshmi
9. P.Vignesh Kumar ... Respondents
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P. No.21703 of 2021
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the first and
second respondents herein to permit the petitioner to run the vehicle bearing
Registration No.TN-25/AZ-6395 plying on the route "Devikapuram to
Sathanur Dam" till disposal of his application for transfer of permit dated
28.09.2021.
For Petitioner : M/s.G.P.Bhargavi
For Respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan,
Additional Government Pleader,
For R1 & R2.
Mr.M.Palani for R4 & R9.
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and second respondents herein to permit the petitioner to run the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25/AZ-6395 plying on the route "Devikapuram to Sathanur Dam" till the disposal of his application for transfer of permit dated 28.09.2021.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's father one late Venkatesa Naidu was holding a permit for stage carriage for the vehicle 2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 bearing registration No.TN-25/AZ-6395 in the route between Devikapuram and Sattanur dam. In and about 2001, the permit was transferred in the name of his wife that is the mother of the petitioner. Thereafter, in the year 2013, the father of the petitioner died and the mother also died on 30.08.2021.
3. In this context, it is the claim of the petitioner that, though the permit stood in the name of the mother of the petitioner, till her life time, the vehicle in question, for which the permit was given, was maintained and plying in the route only by the petitioner with the inherent consent of other legal heirs. On the demise of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner being one of the legal heirs of the mother and also one among the sons, after getting NOC from one of the sons had made an application on 28.09.2021 to the first respondent under Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to transfer the permit in his name.
4. However, the said application has not been processed and no orders have been passed. When the petitioner made an enquiry with the first respondent office, he came to know that among the other legal heirs that is 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 five daughters apart from the two sons of the parents of the petitioner, one daughter namely, Janaki, the 4th respondent and two sons one P.Vignesh kumar, the 9th respondent made an application on 27.09.2021 to the first respondent for transferring the permit in the name of the 9 th respondent with the concurrence of the 4th respondent.
5. The reason for making such an application exclusively by the 9th respondent after getting NOC from the 4th respondent is that, the mother of the petitioner on 12.07.2021 when she was alive, executed a will in favour of the 4th and 9th respondents in which it has been stated as follows:
"jw;nghJs;s NH;epiyapy; tajhd epiyapy; vd;id vd; K:j;j kfs; cldpUe;J ftdpj;J tUtjhYk;. nkYk; vd;Dila kUj;Jtj; njitfis bra;J tUtjhYk;. ,Wjpf;fhyk; tiu vd;Dila K:j;j kfSld; ,Uf;f tpUk;g[tjhYk;. vd;Dila K:j;j kfs; jpUkjp/$hdfp vd;gtUf;F vjph;fhy njitf;F xU ey;yJ bra;a ntz:Lk; vd;w nehf;fj;jpYk;. vd; K:j;j kfspd; kfDk;. vd; K:j;j nguDkhd gh/tpf;ndc&; vd;gthpd; vjph;fhy tsh;r;rpf;fhft[k;. jw;nghJ vdf;F chpikahf cs;sJk;. vd; bgahpy; gjpthfp cs;sJkhd. njtpfhg[uk; to rhj;jD}h; nlk; bry;yf;Toa ngUe;J (Route Bus) gjpt[ vz;/TN 25.AZ.6395 chpikapid. vd; fhyj;jpw;Fg; gpwF. vd; K:j;j kfs; jpUkjp/$hdfp. f- bg/ghh;j;jrhujp kw;Wk;. vd; K:j;j ngud; gh/tpf;ndc&; Mfpa ,UtUk; mile;J bfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ vd; fhyj;jpw;Fg; gpwF ,th;fs; ,UtUk;. ngUe;J gjptpid vd; bgahpy; ,Ue;J mth;fs; bgahpy; khw;wpf; bfhs;st[k; chpik cilath;fs; Mfpwhh;fs;/ ,e;j ngUe;J chpikia vd; K:j;j kfs; jpUkjp/$hdfp. kw;Wk; vd; K:j;j ngud; gh/tpf;ndc&; Mfpa ,UtUf;Fk; ,e;j capy; rhrdk; K:yk; mspj;J tpl;lgoahy;. Vd; fhyhe;jpuj;jpw;Fg; gpwF. ,th;fspd; bgahpy; ngUe;J gjptpid khw;wk; bra;J bfhs;s 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 ntz;oaJ/ vd; fhyhe;jpuj;jpw;Fg; gpwF. ,e;jg; ngUe;J vd;Dila K:j;j kfs; jpUkjp/$hdfp. f-bg/ghh;j;jrhujp kw;Wk;. vdJ K:jj; ngud; gh/tpf;ndc&;. j-bg/ghh;j;jrhujp Mfpa ,UtUf;Fk; kl;Lnk chpikahdJ MFk;/ vd;Dila kw;w 4 kfs;fSf;Fk; kw;Wk; 2 kfd;fSf;Fk; ,e;j ngUe;jpy; vt;tpj chpika[k; fpilahJ vdt[k; ,e;j capy; rhrdk; K:yk; mwptpf;fg;gLfpwJ/"
6. According to the first respondent, since the other legal heir that is the 9th respondent also made an application, when there were applications and counter applications filed by the petitioner and the 9th respondent, unless, 'No Objection Certificate' issued by the other legal heirs are produced before the first respondent, the application of the petitioner cannot be considered and decided. Therefore, on such ground the said application is kept pending.
7. In the meanwhile, in view of the provision, namely Section 82(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, since the person who is having the possession of the vehicle can continue to ply the vehicle for a maximum period of three months from the date of death of the permit holder, during this transitional period without transferring the permit from the original permit holder to the legal heir as contemplated under Sub Section 3 of Section 82 5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle which is being plied in the route be permitted and not unnecessarily be stopped as the law permits the person who succeed to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit to ply the vehicle for the period of three months in the permit as if, it has been granted to himself.
8. Using this provision that is Section 82(2) of the Act, it is the case of the petitioner that, before deciding the application submitted by the petitioner as well as the application submitted by the 9th respondent by the first respondent, since three months period provided under Section 82(2) expires by 30.11.2021, beyond which the vehicle covered by the permit cannot be plied, since he is in possession, as claimed by the petitioner, can be permitted to ply in the permitted route and therefore, for the said purpose only, the present writ petition is filed with the aforesaid prayer.
9. Heard Mrs.Radha Gopalan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. She would submit that, by operation of Section 82(2) of the Act, since the petitioner is in possession of the vehicle, he may be 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 permitted to continue for three months period of maximum and the said three months period came to an end on 30.11.2021 beyond which by using the provision under Section 82(2), he cannot ply the vehicle. Therefore, for the said purpose, the first respondent as well as the second respondent shall allow the petitioner to continue to ply the vehicle, till a decision is made by the first respondent on the application made by the petitioner as well as the 9th respondent. Therefore, such a direction by way of Mandamus can be issued.
10. Per contra, Mr.V.Manoharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that, insofar as the application submitted by the petitioner is concerned, the same can be considered and decided as per the procedure contemplated under Rule 2(1)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules. Under the said Rule, whenever an application for transfer of permit by the legal heir is made, if one of the permit holder dies, along with an application, a death certificate of the original permit holder as well as the legal heir certificate to be annexed. That apart, if there is more than one legal heir apart from the 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 applicant, no objections certificate shall be obtained and produced from other legal heirs and in this case, even though application was made by the petitioner claiming to be one of the legal heirs, since he did not file an application along with 'No Objection Certificate' obtained from the other legal heirs, the said application cannot be processed. Therefore, the same has been intimated to the petitioner. Hence, unless and until as per the Rule 2(1)(4) if all the ingredients as required are produced by the petitioner, the application of the petitioner cannot be processed and final orders cannot be passed.
11. Insofar as the respondents 4 to 9 are concerned, Mr.M.Palani, the learned counsel appeared and he made his submissions stating that, the mother, who was the original permit holder, has bequeathed a Will dated 12.07.2021, that is before her death, with sound mind and the said Will also was registered with the concerned Registrar office and as per the Will, the permit as well as the vehicle concerned, which is in dispute now, have been bequeathed in favour of the daughter, namely, the 4th respondent and her son, that is the grand son of the mother of the petitioner, who is the 9th 8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 respondent herein and these two people alone can inherit the permit in respect of the vehicle concerned from the original permit holder and in respect of this permit, no other legal heirs including the writ petitioner can claim the same..
12. It is further submitted that, it cannot be treated that the original permit holder died intestate. Even though, the Rule 2(1)(4) contemplates that whenever an application is made apart from the death certificate of the permit holder, the legal heir certificate as well as 'No Objection Certificate' to be obtained from the other legal heirs also to be submitted, the requirements contemplated under Rule 2(1)(4) may not be applicable to the present case, in view of the fact that the original permit holder did not die intestate but instead she executed a Will which has been properly registered in the Register office, therefore, based on the Will automatically the permit as well as the vehicle concerned shall come only to the 4th and 9th respondents. Therefore, the application submitted by the 9th respondent shall be processed, and accordingly, the permit has to be transferred in the name of the 9th respondent without insisting upon the 9th respondent to get 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 NOC from other legal heirs.
13. In this context, learned counsel appearing for both sides has relied upon a decision of this Court made in W.P.(MD).No.10526 & 10527 of 2012 dated 01.02.2013, in the matter of P.V.Kalyan Vs State of Tamil Nadu and others.
14. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court.
15. It is not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner was the original permit holder and she died on 30.08.2021. Therefore, the fourth respondent and other legal heirs have been shown as parties in this writ petition. Before her demise, the mother executed a Will on 12.07.2021 and the relevant portions of the Will have already been quoted herein. Relying upon this portion of the Will, it is claimed by the 9th respondent through the 4th respondent that, since the permit as well as the vehicle has been the exclusive property of the mother who through the said Will had bequeathed 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 the property in favour of the 4th and 9th respondents, except these two people, none of the other legal heirs can claim any right over these properties. Therefore, the question of getting any NOC from others and to file it before the first respondent does not arise.
16. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that, in the said Will, it is not only the permit under the vehicle was dealt with but also it has been stated by the mother that insofar as other immovable joint property of the family is concerned, if it is taken up for partition, whatever the share comes to the mother how it should be shared among the other legal heirs also have been dealt with. In that case, it is a larger question to decide as to how the entire property belonging to the family concerned has to be partitioned among the legal heirs. However, that issue cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Now, the same cannot be decided by the Regional Transport Authority that is the first respondent.
11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021
17. In this context, if we look at Section 82(2) which has made it very clear that, who ever succeeds the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit made for the period of three months use the permit as if it has been granted to himself.
18. In this case, it is the claim of the petitioner that he succeeded the possession of the vehicle. Though it is disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent that possession is illegal possession, the fact remains that the possession of the vehicle in question is in the hands of the petitioner.
19. If that being so, the person who succeed in possession of the vehicle can ply the vehicle in the permitted route for a maximum period of three months, the three months period is also over by 30.11.2021. During the period, whether the petitioner plied the vehicle or kept the vehicle idle when the disputed question has arisen, this Court need not go into those aspects. As of now the question is whether, the petitioner can continue to 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 ply the vehicle beyond 30.11.2021 till the decision is taken by the first respondent on the application made by him.
20. In this context, admittedly there has been two applications, one is dated 27.09.2021 filed by the 9th respondent another one is dated 28.09.2021 filed by the writ petitioner.
21. Insofar as these two applications are concerned, these two applications should have been filed under Rule 2(1)(4) of the Act. At the time of filing the application, the necessary documents to be filed are death certificate of the permit holder, legal heir certificate of the applicant and No Objection Certificate of legal heirs, if there is any other legal heir other than the applicant, should have been filed.
22. In both cases, according to the submission made before this Court neither the petitioner nor the 9th respondent had filed the necessary NOC from other legal heirs.
13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021
23. In this context, even though, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the 9th respondent that such a requirement need not be complied with in this case, because of the Will, he has relied upon, in this context, this Court does not wish to make any comment about the Will or the right over the permit of the vehicle of the 4th and 9th respondents.
24. Moreover, in this context, it is for the first respondent to take a call and take a decision as to whether the application filed by the petitioner should be processed and also the application submitted by the 9th respondent should be processed, can be decided.
25. Since both applications have been filed for plying right over the permit and the vehicle concerned in this regard, even though both are legal heirs of the mother, who was the original permit holder, in this context, whether they fulfill the conditions imposed under Section 82 r/w Rule 2(1)(4) of the Act as well as the Rules, is the question to be decided only by the first respondent.
14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021
26. However, such a decision has to be taken by the first respondent after giving opportunity to not only the petitioner as well as the 9th respondent but also to other private respondents who are the other legal heirs of the original permit holder.
27. However, till such a decision is taken, if the vehicle is already having the valid permit in the permitted route and the vehicle is plied till 30.11.2021 by reason of Section 82(2) of the Act as claimed by the petitioner, this Court feels that there can be no impediment for the first respondent to permit, the petitioner to ply the vehicle for the limited period that is till the disposal of the application made by the petitioner as well as the 9th respondent.
28. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that, this writ petition can be disposed of by giving following directions;
(i) There shall be a direction to the first respondent to decide on the application submitted by the petitioner dated 28.09.2021 as well as the application submitted by the 9th respondent dated 27.09.2021 in accordance with law 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 especially in the context of Section 82 as well as Rule 2(1)(4) of the rules.
(ii) Before deciding the said applications, opportunity should be given to both parties as well as other legal heirs who are shown as the party respondents in this writ petition of the original permit holder.
(iii) After affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties whatever the input/documents to be supplied by them shall also be taken into account in accordance with law.
(iv) For making such a decision, a maximum period of six weeks is granted by this Court within which the first respondent shall decide both the applications and final order shall be passed.
(v) Till such time, the vehicle in question shall be permitted to be plied by the petitioner only as an interim arrangement and by giving such a permission to the petitioner that will not automatically confer any right on the petitioner and any right over the permit to be inherited/ transferred in the name of the petitioner as that has to be decided on merits only by the first respondent.
16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021
29. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.12.2021 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No kmm To
1. The Regional Transport Authority Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Regional Transport Officer Arni, Tiruvannamalai.
17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P. No.21703 of 2021 R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
kmm W.P.No.21703 of 2021 06.12.2021 18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis