Madras High Court
R.Rani vs The Secretary on 18 April, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
W.P No.3568 of 2023
R.Rani Petitioner
vs.
The Secretary
State Transport Authority,
Puducherry. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent herein to forthwith
consider the petitioner application dated 13.02.2009 and transfer the permit No.52/
PY/1992 to ply on the route “Pondicherry to Nettapakkam” along with the vehicle
bearing Registration No. PY- 01/ AJ- 6789 from the name of the petitioner's husband,
the deceased permit holder in the name of the petitioner and further accept the
renewal application for renewal of permit in respect of the above permit for the
period from 01.12.2017 and also grant the same.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Radha Gopalan
For Respondent : Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar
Government Advocate (Puducherry)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to consider the application submitted by the petitioner on 13.02.2009,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
wherein, the petitioner has sought for the transfer of permit from the name of her
husband and further has sought for the renewal of the permit for the period from
01.12.2017 onwards.
2.Heard Mrs.S.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr.M.Nirmal Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Puducherry)
appearing on behalf of the respondent.
3.The case of the petitioner is that her husband was holding a State Carriage
Permit to ply on the route "Pondicherry to Nettapakkam" in respect of the vehicle
bearing Registration No.PY-01/AJ-6789. The husband of the petitioner died on
29.07.2008 leaving behind the petitioner, daughters and a son. The petitioner made
an application on 13.02.2009, seeking for transfer of permit from the name of her
deceased husband to the name of the petitioner.
4.A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.72 of 2016 before the learned Principal
District Judge, Puduchery. One of the property that was involved in the suit was the
vehicle and the permit and the suit was filed for a relief of partition. The suit came to
be disposed of by a judgment and decree dated 18.04.2016 and for proper
appreciation, the preliminary decree that was passed in a suit is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
34 . In the result, the sult is decreed and the preliminary
decree for partition is passed on the following terms:
1) The plaintiff Nos.2,3 and 4 are entitled to an undivided
1/6 share in the suit B,C and D schedule properties.
2) The defendant Nos.6 and 7 are entitled to share along
with the plaintiff Nos 2,3 and 4 in their 1/6th undivided share in
the B,C, and D schedule properties only if they establish that
they were born to the deceased Balasundaram which issue
cannot be decided in this suit, in view of insufficient evidence
available on record and consequently defendant Nos.6 and 7
have to work out their remedies separately as against the
plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and 4.
3) The 1, 2, 4, and 5th defendants are also each entitled to
an undivided 1/6 share in the B,C and D schedule properties.
4) The defendant Nos.8,9,10 and 11 being the legal heirs
of deceased 3rd defendant are all jointly entitled to an undivided
1/6th share in the B,C, and D schedule properties.
5) The amounts paid by the plaintiffs and the defendants
towards the advocate commissioner's fees and surveyor's fee are
to be equally apportioned during the time of final decree
proceedings with sufficient and acceptable bills which are to be
produced by the parties and/or by any memo to be filed by the
advocate commissioner Tmt.Devasundari, with respect to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fees received by her. The Advocate Commissioner has also filed
an additional memo seeking additional remuneration. Since
there are 50 numbers of B schedule properties regarding which
she had filed report, this court in addition fixes additional fee of
Rs.6000/- to be again equally apportioned by the parties.
6) The plaintiffs and the 5th defendant are entitled to file
an application for final decree and on such application, another
advocate commissioner may be appointed to divide the schedule
B,C and D suit properties among the parties in the ratios
mentioned above. While effecting such division, the advocate
commissioner may also take note of the joint compromise memo
recorded among the parties, so that the properties already
allotted therein if agreed upon may be allotted by equitable
partition. However the joint compromise memo cannot be the
sole basis for division of the B schedule suit properties among
the parties. The Advocate Commissioner so appointed during the
final decree proceedings may take independent procedure
regarding the division of B schedule properties. With respect to
the C schedule business namely Balaji Wines and Balaji Bus
Service, again the Advocate Commissioner may refer to the joint
compromise memo entered into between the parties and exercise
his/her discretion either to divide the business in the same
method set out in the joint compromise memo or give his/her
own equitable partition method. Similar method may also be
followed with respect to D schedule movable properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The petitioner made a subsequent representation on 06.10.2022 to consider
the application for transfer of permit and also sought for the renewal of the permit
from 01.12.2017 onwards. Since the same was not considered, the present writ
petition has been filed before this Court.
6.The petitioner by filing an application on 13.02.2009 has sought for the
transfer of permit which stands in the name of her husband to the name of the
petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle in question was
also one of the property that was involved in the partition suit. At the time of passing
the preliminary decree, the Civil Court has assigned specific shares to the parties and
insofar as the vehicle is concerned, it came under the "C" Schedule. There is no
indication in the preliminary decree that the petitioner will be entitled for the
exclusive right over the vehicle for which there is a State Carriage permit. In view of
the same, it will not be possible for the respondent to transfer the permit exclusively
in the name of the petitioner. In the same way, the renewal of the permit also cannot
be made exclusively in the name of the petitioner.
7.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a joint compromise
memo was entered into between the parties to divide the business and as on today, no
one else is interested in plying the bus except the petitioner. In view of the same, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is left open to the petitioner to give a fresh representation to the respondent along
with a no objection from the other sharers. If the other sharers are not interested in
the permit and to ply the vehicle and to get the permit and they give No Objection
Certificate, it will always be open to the respondent to take that into consideration
and act upon the application submitted by the petitioner for transfer of permit in her
name and also for the renewal of the permit from the year 2017 onwards. If the
petitioner is able to get the no objection from the other sharers and the representation
is made to the respondent, the respondent shall act upon the same and take a final
decision, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the representation
from the petitioner. To this extent, the interest of the petitioner can be safeguarded by
this Court. If ultimately, the petitioner is not able to get any no objection from the
other sharers, the petitioner has to necessarily wait for the final decree to be passed
in which specific properties will be assigned to the sharers.
8.This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No Costs.
18.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No
ssr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The Secretary
State Transport Authority,
Puducherry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
ssr
W.P No.3568 of 2023
18.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
