[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

G. Selvaraj(Died) vs The Regional Transport Authority on 30 April, 2026

                                                                                    C.R.P.No.3029 of 2021


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                         CORAM

                                          RESERVED ON          :       07.04.2026


                                         PRONOUNCED ON :               30.04.2026

                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
                                          C.R.P.No.3029 of 2021
                                                   and
                            W.P.Nos.16648 of 2019 & W.P.Nos.19015 OF 2019
                                                   and
                    W.M.P.Nos.8748 of 2022, 16277 of 2019, 18355 of 2019 & 18357 of 2019



                CRP No. 3029 of 2021
                1. G.Selvaraj(Died)

                2. G.Parvathy Kutty

                     Petitioner -2 brought on record as LRs of the
                     deceased Sole petitioner viz G.Selvaraj vide
                     court order dated 06.04.2022 made in CMP
                     No.6051 of 2022 in CRP.No.3029 of 2021.
                                                                                       ..Petitioner(s)
                                                            Vs
                1. The Regional Transport Authority
                   Pollachi Region,
                   At Coimbatore.

                2. G. Vijayakumar

                                                                                    ..Respondent(s)

                Prayer in CRP No. 3029 of 2021:
                                   Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
                of India, praying to set aside the order of the State Transport Appellate
                                                                                            __________
                                                                                            Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    C.R.P.No.3029 of 2021


                Tribunal, Chennai made in M.V.Appeal No.11 of 2021 dated 10-12-2021
                confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi Region @
                Coimbatore R.No.7908/A2/2018 dated 24-03-2021 and allow the above CRP.


                                  For Petitioner(s)   : Mr.M.Krishnappan (Senior Counsel)
                                                        For M/s.Swarnalatha Ramachandran

                                  For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Murali
                                                      Government Advocate (For R1)

                                                       Mr.G.Vijayakumar
                                                       (party-in-person) (For R2)

                WP No. 16648 of 2019:

                1. G.Selvaraj (Deceased)

                2. G.Parvathy Kutty
                   W/o.Late G.Selvaraj, 69/24, Ramakrishnapuram
                   Street, Pollachi 642 001.
                   (P2 substituted as the LR of the deceased P1,
                   G.Selvaraj, vide order dated 08.04.2022 in
                   W.MP.NO.8261 OF 2022 IN WP.NO.16648
                   OF 2019)

                                                                                       ..Petitioner(s)
                                                            Vs
                1. The Regional Transport Authority,
                   Pollachi @ Coimbatore Coimbatore.

                2. The Secretary,
                   Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi.

                3. G.Vijayakumar,

                4. Tmt.Dhanalakshmi Sridar
                                                                                    ..Respondent(s)




                                                                                            __________
                                                                                            Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                    C.R.P.No.3029 of 2021


                Prayer in WP No. 16648 of 2019:
                                  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on
                the file of the 1st respondent dated 30.05.2019 made in R. No.7908 / A2/ 2018
                and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1 st and 2nd respondents to
                transfer the permit from the name of the deceased permit holder to and in favour
                of the writ petitioner herein in respect of the vehicle TN-41/ R-8343 covered by
                the permit “Pollachi to Dharapuram” with IST Pollachi and Coimbatore.
                                  For Petitioner(s)   : Mr.M.Krishnappan (Senior Counsel)
                                                        For M/s.Swarnalatha Ramachandran

                                  For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Murali
                                                      Government Advocate (For R1 & R2)

                                                       Mr.G.Vijayakumar
                                                       (party-in-person) (For R3)
                                                       For R4 – No appearance

                WP No. 19015 of 2019
                G.Vijayakumar
                                                                                       ..Petitioner(s)
                                                            Vs
                1. The Collector
                   Regional Transport Authority,
                   Coimbatore 641 018, Coimbatore District.

                2. The Regional Transport Officer
                   Pollachi-642 001

                3. G. Selvaraj(Died)

                4. Dhanalakshmi
                5. S.Parvathy
                6. S.Sasisharan
                7. G.Sathish
                   (R5 to R7 are substituted as Lrs of Deceased
                   Third respondent vide order dated 07.04.2026

                                                                                            __________
                                                                                            Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  C.R.P.No.3029 of 2021


                     made in W.M.P.No.8748/2022 in
                     W.P.No.19015/2019)
                                                                                   ..Respondent(s)



                Prayer in WP No. 19015 of 2019:
                          Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
                to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pending on the file of
                the respondent in pursuant of the impugned order bearing R.No.7908/A2/2018
                dated 30.05.2019, on the file of the 1st respondent in so as the same rejects the
                petitioner’s prayer for issuance of the joint R.C book and the permit and quash
                the same.
                                  For Petitioner(s)   : Mr.G.Vijayakumar
                                                       (party-in-person)

                                  For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Murali
                                                      Government Advocate (For R1 & R2)

                                                       Mr.M.Krishnappan (Senior Counsel)
                                                       For M/s.Swarnalatha Ramachandran
                                                       (For proposed respondents)

                                                       R3 – Died


                                                COMMON JUDGMENT

The Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.No.3029 of 2021 is against the

rejection of renewal of permit of a stage carriage plying on the route Pollachi

and Dharapuram, with independent shuttle trips between Pollachi and

Coimbatore.

__________ Page4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2. The writ petitions in W.P.Nos.16648 and 19015 of 2019 were filed by

the sons of the deceased permit holder for transfer of permit of the said stage

carriage in their names.

3. For better understanding, the parties are referred to on the basis of the

rank in the civil revision petition.

4. A lis had arisen between the parties, and the second respondent had

instituted a suit for partition, wherein a preliminary decree had been passed. In

respect of the bus and its permit, the second respondent had been held to be

entitled to 1/7th share in the bus together with the permit and also for accounts

and income with regard to his 1/7th share.

5. Appeal suits have been filed both by the second respondent and the

father of the petitioner in appeal suits in A.S. Nos.1046 and 1075 of 2012, in

which an interim order, restraining passing a final decree alone had been made.

6. In the interregnum, the permit holder, namely the father of the

petitioner and the second respondent, had died, and applications had been taken

out for renewal of permit and also for transfer of permit in their names. The

appeal suits are still pending adjudication before this Court.

__________ Page5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7. A perusal of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority,

refusing to renew the permit would show that both the petitioner and the second

respondent had taken out applications for renewal of permit, and the Regional

Transport Authority had rejected their request and directed them to stop plying

the vehicle on the route with immediate effect.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner alone had filed an appeal before

the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which was also contested by the second

respondent. The second respondent had not independently challenged the

rejection of his renewal application.

9. On a perusal of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority,

it would indicate that, as the final decree had not been passed in the partition

suit, and no specific relief had been specifically granted in favour of the

respective parties, and as the parties were not willing to come to an amicable

settlement and the dispute has not been settled between the parties, the

Authority had rejected their claim.

10. On the other hand, the Appellate Tribunal, which order is impugned

herein, had gone a step ahead and had held that as the parties had not applied for

transfer of permit within a period of three months from the date of death of the

deceased permit holder, the permit had expired, and therefore, the permit which __________ Page6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

had expired in the year 2018 on the death of the deceased permit holder cannot

be sought to be renewed on the basis of an application made after three years,

and hence rejected the claim of the revision petitioner.

11. It is an admitted fact that the permit was valid from 16.03.2016 till

15.03.2021, and applications had been made by both the parties in the month of

February 2021, i.e., more than 15 days prior to the expiry of permit as mandated

under the Motor Vehicles Act.

12. As already found, a preliminary decree had been passed in favour of

the second respondent with regard to 1/7th share in the permit, which would

mean that the remaining 6/7th share is vested with the permit holder, the

petitioner, and other legal heirs of the deceased permit holder.

13. It is also brought on record that even during the pendency of the suit,

the deceased permit holder had bequeathed the permit in favour of the

petitioner. It is for the petitioner to work out his rights under the Will in the

manner known to law, as the permit had become contentious permit with regard

to its inheritance, as permit is a property, which can be transferred and inherited.

14. The finding of the Tribunal that the permit dies on the death of the permit

holder, as no application had been filed for transfer within the required time, is __________ Page7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

wholly erroneous, and on that ground, the entire order is liable to be set aside.

15. Considering the fact that the second respondent had failed to

challenge the rejection of the renewal of permit, his claim for transfer of permit

in his name also cannot be entertained at the present stage, especially when,

even under the preliminary decree, he has been given only 1/7th share in the

permit and the bus.

16. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the permit, which

is a property, is liable to be renewed by the authority, and considering the fact

that it is only the petitioner who had challenged the order of rejection of permit

by the Regional Transport Authority, he would be entitled to get the permit

renewed and transferred in his name, which, however, shall be subject to the

result of the appeal suits pending disposal before this Court.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition stands allowed,

and the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made

in M.V.Appeal No.11 of 2021 dated 10-12-2021 confirming the order of the

Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi Region @ Coimbatore

R.No.7908/A2/2018 dated 24-03-2021 are set aside. Consequently, a direction

is issued to the Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi Region, Coimbatore, to

renew the permit in the name of the petitioner.

__________ Page8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18. In view of the orders passed in the Civil Revision Petition, the writ

petition filed in W.P.No.16648 of 2019 stands allowed and the writ petition

filed in W.P.No.19015 of 2019 stands dismissed, however, subject to the result

of the judgment and decree to be made in A.S.Nos.1046 & 1075 of 2012. No

costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

30-04-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes kak

1. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai.

2. The Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi Region @ Coimbatore.

3. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi.

4. The Collector Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore 641 018, Coimbatore District.

5. The Regional Transport Officer Pollachi-642 001.

__________ Page9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.KUMARESH BABU J.

kak

and W.P.Nos.16648 of 2019 & W.P.Nos.19015 OF 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.8748 of 2022, 16277 of 2019, 18355 of 2019 & 18357 of 2019

30-04-2026

__________ Page10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM Dated : 30.04.2026 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

and W.P.Nos.16648 of 2019 & W.P.Nos.19015 OF 2019 and W.M.P.Nos.8748 of 2022, 16277 of 2019, 18355 of 2019 & 18357 of 2019

3. G.Selvaraj(Died)

4. G.Parvathy Kutty

Petitioner -2 brought on record as LRs of the deceased Sole petitioner viz G.Selvaraj vide court order dated 06.04.2022 made in CMP No.6051 of 2022 in CRP.No.3029 of 2021.

..Petitioner(s) Vs

3. The Regional Transport Authority Pollachi Region, At Coimbatore.

4. G. Vijayakumar

..Respondent(s)

Prayer in CRP No. 3029 of 2021:

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai made in M.V.Appeal No.11 of 2021 dated 10-12-2021 confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi Region @ Coimbatore R.No.7908/A2/2018 dated 24-03-2021 and allow the above CRP.

__________ Page11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Krishnappan (Senior Counsel) For M/s.Swarnalatha Ramachandran

For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate (For R1)

Mr.G.Vijayakumar (party-in-person) (For R2)

WP No. 16648 of 2019:

3. G.Selvaraj (Deceased)

4. G.Parvathy Kutty W/o.Late G.Selvaraj, 69/24, Ramakrishnapuram Street, Pollachi 642 001.

(P2 substituted as the LR of the deceased P1, G.Selvaraj, vide order dated 08.04.2022 in W.MP.NO.8261 OF 2022 IN WP.NO.16648 OF 2019)

..Petitioner(s) Vs

5. The Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi @ Coimbatore Coimbatore.

6. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi.

7. G.Vijayakumar,

8. Tmt.Dhanalakshmi Sridar ..Respondent(s)

Prayer in WP No. 16648 of 2019:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on

__________ Page12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the file of the 1st respondent dated 30.05.2019 made in R. No.7908 / A2/ 2018 and to quash the same and consequently direct the 1 st and 2nd respondents to transfer the permit from the name of the deceased permit holder to and in favour of the writ petitioner herein in respect of the vehicle TN-41/ R-8343 covered by the permit “Pollachi to Dharapuram” with IST Pollachi and Coimbatore.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.Krishnappan (Senior Counsel) For M/s.Swarnalatha Ramachandran

For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate (For R1 & R2)

Mr.G.Vijayakumar (party-in-person) (For R3) For R4 – No appearance

G.Vijayakumar ..Petitioner(s) Vs

8. The Collector Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore 641 018, Coimbatore District.

9. The Regional Transport Officer Pollachi-642 001

10.G. Selvaraj(Died)

11.Dhanalakshmi

12.S.Parvathy

13.S.Sasisharan

14.G.Sathish (R5 to R7 are substituted as Lrs of Deceased Third respondent vide order dated 07.04.2026 made in W.M.P.No.8748/2022 in W.P.No.19015/2019) ..Respondent(s)

__________ Page13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prayer in WP No. 19015 of 2019:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records pending on the file of the respondent in pursuant of the impugned order bearing R.No.7908/A2/2018 dated 30.05.2019, on the file of the 1st respondent in so as the same rejects the petitioner’s prayer for issuance of the joint R.C book and the permit and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.G.Vijayakumar (party-in-person)

For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.Murali Government Advocate (For R1 & R2)

Mr.M.Krishnappan (Senior Counsel) For M/s.Swarnalatha Ramachandran (For proposed respondents)

R3 – Died

Common order

After pronouncement of the orders, the learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner in the civil revision petition would submit an interim

order had been granted to continue renewal of the permit and that the same may

be continued till disposal of the application.

2. Since a positive order has been passed in the civil revision petition,

directing renewal, the same shall be made forthwith on receipt of the order and

the petitioner is permitted to continue running the bus.

__________ Page14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. The Regional Transport Authority, Pollachi Region, Coimbatore, shall

not wait for the certified copy of the order and shall pass appropriate orders on

production of the web copy of the order.