Madras High Court
S.Sivakumar vs The State Transport Appellate ... on 3 August, 2023
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BALAJI
W.A.Nos.105 and 106 of 2014
and M.P.No.s 1 of 2014 & 1 of 2014
S.Sivakumar ..Appellant in both WAs
Vs
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
City Civil Court Buildings,
High Court, Chennai -104.
2.The Regional Transport Authority,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.N.Thangavelu Mudaliyar ..Respondents in both WAs
Prayer: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside
the common order made in W.P.Nos.26816 and 26817 of 2009, dated
07.01.2014.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.M.Krishnappan, Senior Counsel
For M/s. R.Swarnalatha
For Respondent : Mrs.Geetha Thamaraisevlam, Spl.GP-R2
Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior Counsel - R3
For Mr. J.Shanmugasundara Babu
----
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Challenging the common order passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.26816 and 26817 of 2009, dated 07.01.2014, the present writ
appeals are filed.
2. The primordial contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
in these appeals is that since the appellant complied with the provisions of
Sec. 82 of Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, the Regional
Transport Authority/2nd respondent has rightly passed the order to transfer
the permit to the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the
appellant, the 3rd respondent has no locus-standi to file an appeal before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the Regional
Transport Authority, therefore the order passed by the writ court confirming
the order passed by the tribunal is not valid and liable to be set aside.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent would
submit that the deceased Velu and the 3rd respondent herein have jointly
submitted application for transfer of permit in respect of the stage carriage
permit from Vellore to Santhanoor dam. Subsequently, various litigations
were arose for granting permission infavour of the respondent and pending
proceedings, the permit holder Velu died and the permission was granted to
the legal heirs of the aforesaid permit holder.
4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 2nd
respondent-Authority would submit that as per Section 82(3) of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the appellant who is a legal heir of the deceased permit holder
M.K.Velu is entitled for transfer of permit, therefore, the order passed by the
Regional Transport Authority is perfectly valid.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
5. Heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsels appearing
either side and perused the documents available on record.
6. It reveals from the records that the deceased permit holder
M.K.Velu had entered into agreement for transfer of his vehicle in favour of
the 3rd respondent herein and also moved an application for transfer of
permit in respect of the above said vehicle from his name to the 3rd
respondent under Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the
application was returned and subsequently represented after rectification of
defects. The deceased M.K.Velue had filed a statement before the Regional
Transport Authority on 07.02.2000 requesting to consider and pass
necessary orders on the joint transfer application dated 12.01.2000. This
shows that the original permit holder deceased M.K.Velu, prior to his death,
had accepted that there was a valid agreement between him and the 3rd
respondent. Therefore, opportunity should have been given to the 3rd
respondent before passing any orders on the transfer of permission
application. The Appellate Authority has appreciated the said fact and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
remitted the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh
consideration.
7. The learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned fairly
agreed that all these aspects can be adjudicated before the Regional
Transport Authority. Hence we are of the view that all the disputed facts
raised in these appeals by both parties can be adjudicated before the
appropriate forum. The learned counsels also drew attention of this Court
that already respondent has field a suit before the City Civil Court and the
same was returned pointing out that the remedy is available under the
provisions of M.V Act.
8. Therefore in light of the submissions made by both the learned
counsels, since it requires adjudication on the side of parties for transfer of
permit, which has been transferred during the lifetime of deceased Velu, the
following order is passed;
i. Order of the State Transport Tribunal dated 02.12.2009 and order of
the writ court in W.P.Nos 26816 and 26817 of 2009, dated 07.01.2014
is set aside and remitted to the Regional Transport Authority /2nd
respondent to take on file the proceedings in in Pro.R.No.
A1/26694/2008, dated 23.01.2009 and complete the proceedings after
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
providing opportunity to both the parties, within period of twelve
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If there is any
provision for examination of documents and marking of documents,
the same shall be provided to both the parties in accordance with law.
ii. We make it clear the Regional Transport Authority/2nd respondent
shall pass orders independently on merits without being influenced by
the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority or the order of
this Court.
iii. Since the appellant is now operating the stage carriage permit, we are
not passing any order with regard to the operation of stage permit till
the disposal of the appeal pending before the appellate tribunal.
9. With the above observations and directions, these writ appeals are
disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are
closed.
(D.K.K., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
03.08.2023
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
To
1.The State Transport Appellate Tribunal,
City Civil Court Buildings,
High Court,
Chennai -104.
2.The Regional Transport Authority,
Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
AND
P. B. BALAJI, J.
ak
W.A.No.105 and 106 of 2014
and M.P.No.s 1 of 2014 & 1 of 2014
03.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
