High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.10.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.1987 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007R.Prabakaran ...PetitionerVs.1.The Regional Transport Authority(District Collector), Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam2. The Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport officer, Nagapattinam3. The Regional Transport officer, Karur.4. M.Moorthy, S/o Muthukrishna Naidu No.1, Sivasakthi Nagar, Nagapattinam Taluk and District. ... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamus as statedwithin.For Petitioner: Mr.R.KarthikeyanFor Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Mr.V.Arun Additional Government PleaderFor Respondent No.4: Mr.S.Sounthar---- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Seeking to issue a writ of Certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records comprised in Memo R.No.A2/35031/2006dated 29.12.2000 on the file of the second respondent and theconsequential Memo No.01831/A2/2007 dated 11.1.2007 on the fileof the third respondent and quash the same and consequentlydirect the third respondent to effect transfer of the permit inrespect of the Stage Carriage Bus TN-51-B-4242, this writpetition has been brought forth before this Court.2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition isperused.3. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.4. The case of the petitioner in short is that a stagecarriage bus bearing Registration No.TN-51-B-4242 plying on theroute from Nagore to Vedaranyam was purchased by one Kanagarajanfrom its owner along with the route. The said Kanagarajan, theowner of the vehicle as well as the permit holder was not able toply the vehicle due to various commitments and therefore hewanted to transfer the same along with the vehicle . Accordingly,the owner of the vehicle wanted to transfer the permit in thename of the petitioner who undertook to ply the vehicle byabsorbing the existing crews and paying the financial dues tothe hire purchase agreement holder . Both of them have made ajoint application on 7.12.2006. wherein the first respondent hadcalled for objection as per the provisions of the Act andaccordingly objections were received and orders were passed bythe first respondent by his proceedings No. A2/35031/06dated 22.12.2006 transferring the permit from the name of theoriginal ownership to the name of the petitioner and alsodirected the petitioner to produce Registration certificatetransferring his name along with the Fitness certificate,Insurance certificate and current taxes to his office.Accordingly, the petitioner produced all the certificatesrequired and thereafter applied to the third respondent to havethe vehicle to transfer in his name as the third respondent isthe jurisdictional authority in respect of the transfer ofownership of the vehicle. The said application was submitted tothe third respondent on 10.1.2007. While the matter stood thus,on 4.1.2007 the petitioner received a communication from thesecond respondent dated 29.12.2006 calling upon the petitionerand the owner of the vehicle to appear before the firstrespondent for an enquiry on 22.1.2007 and thereafter the thirdrespondent by a communication dated 11.1.2007 had informed the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner to appear before the first respondent and thereafterre-submitted the application along with the records. Thereafter,the petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent has raisedcertain objections and on the strength of which, now theauthorities have attempted to reopen the proceedings and issuednotice for enquiry on 22.1.2007. Under such circumstances, thiswrit petition has been brought forth before this Court.5. In support of the writ petition, learned counsel forthe petitioner would submit that once a joint application wasfiled and after considering the objections raised, an order cameto be passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powersunder Section 82(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act ordering transferof the permit from the name of the original owner to the name ofthe petitioner and the petitioner was also called upon to produceall the certificates which accordingly done, if a person isaggrieved over such an order of transfer, the only remedyavailable to the petitioner is to prefer an appeal under Section89 of the said Act and there is no question of reopening theorders already passed. Under such circumstances, the noticeissued for the alleged enquiry dated 22.1.2007 is illegal andhence it has got to be quashed.6. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent wouldsubmit that the orders of the first respondent could not havepassed an order on 25.12.2006 which is a public holiday.When sucha contentions was raised, the learned Government Advocate wasdirected to produce the file and now the files are producedbefore this Court. From the files it is revealed that the orderunder challenge was prepared on 21.12.2006 and the order waspassed by the first respondent on 25.12.2006. Now the learnedcounsel for respondents 1 and 3 would submit that the orders wereactually passed by the authority on 25.12.2006.7. The Court paid its anxious consideration on therival submissions made. After doing so, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the impugned notice issued by the secondrespondent and the further notice issued by the third respondentfor enquiry to be conducted on 22.1.2007 have got to benecessarily quashed. In the instant case, it is not incontroversy that joint application was made by the original ownerof the vehicle along with the purchaser, viz.,the petitionerherein on 7.12.2006. It is not also in dispute that objectionswere called for and after scrutinizing the objection, an ordercame to be passed by the first respondent transferring the permitfrom the name of the original owner and thereafter the thirdrespondent also called upon the petitioner to produce necessarycertificates and which has also been done by the petitioner. Thefurther procedural formality was only to effect the transfer of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ownership of the vehicle. While the matter stood thus, anobjection was made by the fourth respondent and after receivingthe objections, now the impugned notice was issued by the secondrespondent and following the same, consequential notice wasissued by the third respondent. While the order of transfer ofpermit was already passed by the the first respondent hereinand necessary certificates were produced by the petitioner beforethe third respondent , no question of reopening the proceedingsmerely on the basis of the objections raised by an individual. Ifreally the fourth respondent is aggrieved by such an order oftransfer made by the first respondent, the remedy open to him isto prefer an appeal as one envisaged under Section 89 of theMotor Vehicles Act and not otherwise.8. Under such circumstances, both the notices issued bythe first respondent dated 29.12.2006 by the second respondentand consequently the other notice issued by the third respondentdated 11.1.2007 for enquiry to be held on 22.1.2007 are bad andhence they are declared as invalid and liable to be quashed andaccordingly quashed. This order will not stand in the way of thefourth respondent in preferring appeal as the one contemplatedunder the provisions of the said Act and when the appeal ispreferred, if any delay is noticed, the appellate authority maytake into consideration the pendency of writ proceedings in thisCourt.9. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.Consequently, MP.Nos.1 and 2 are closed.VJYSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Regional Transport Authority(District Collector), Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam2. The Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Regional Transport officer, Nagapattinam https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Regional Transport officer, Karur.+ 1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR No.61750+ 1 cc to mr. S. Sounthar, Advocate SR No. 61321+ 1 cc to M/s. R. Karthikeyan, Advocate SR No. 61150AD(CO)SR/10.10.2007W.P.NO.1987 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2007