Anitha Ratheesh v. Regional Transport Officer, Civil Station, Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1939** ## **WP(C).No. 38388 of 2017 (W)** **----------------------------** **PETITIONER(S): -------------------------** **ANITHA RATHEESH, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.LATE RATHEESHKUMAR, 29/2770, SREEVALSAM, VIKRAM SARABHAI ROAD, POONITHURA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN.** **RESPONDENT(S): -----------------------------** **REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.** **BVY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.C.S. SHEEJA.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** rs. ## **WP(C).No. 38388 of 2017 (W)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE RELATING TO MOTOR CYCLE NO.KL-07 BV-3545.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 22.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS CHERANELLUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.28006168 DATED 09.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONITHURA VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.[C]NO.1698/2017 DATED 18.01.2017.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** rs. ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J. --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 12[th] day of December, 2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner's late husband Sri.Ratheeshkumar was the registered owner a CB UNICON Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KL-07/BV-3545 covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration. He expired on 27.06.2017. In order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner would rely on Ext.P2 Death Certificate dated 22.07.2017 issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Cheranellur Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, in order to effect transfer of ownership, she obtained Ext.P3 Relationship Certificate from Poonithura Village Officer on 09.10.2017. However, when an application was made before the respondent seeking transfer of ownership of the aforesaid vehicle, the same was not accepted on the ground that Ext.P3 document is not sufficient to effect such transfer and the petitioner should produce certificate from the Revenue Authorities showing the details of the family members of the registered owner. It is in such circumstance that the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to accept the application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle covered by Ext.P1, following the procedure prescribed under Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The issue raised in this writ petition is no more _res integra,_ in view of the law laid down by a learned Single Judge of this Court in _**Bhagyalakshmy v. R.T.A., Palakkad [2010 (2) KLT 431]**_ . Paragraphs 6 to 8 of the said judgment reads thus : _“6. Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows:_ _xxxx xxxx xxxx_ _A reading of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 56 makes it abundantly clear that the right to use the vehicle of a deceased person conferred on the person “succeeding to the possession of the vehicle”. The words clearly indicate that the right to use the vehicle for a period of three months, as if it had been transferred to him, has been conferred on a person who satisfies the condition stipulated therein, namely, that he has succeeded to the possession of the vehicle”. He has to satisfy the further condition of having informed the registering authority within thirty days of the death of the owner of two facts, the first being the factum of the death of the owner and the second being his intention to use the vehicle. As per Subrule (2) of Rule 56, it is the person who is referred to in Sub Rule 1 who shall apply in Form 31 within the period of three months to the said registering authority for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle to his name. Therefore, the person seeking such transfer would have to satisfy the authority by producing necessary documents that he has 'succeeded' to the possession of the vehicle. Since the expression used is 'possession', the person need not in all cases be the owner of the vehicle. A co-owner or a partner who succeeds to the_ W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 3 _possession of the vehicle can also move under sub rule (1), though, transfer of ownership of the vehicle can be granted only to a person who has succeeded to the ownership of the vehicle also. He would further have to satisfy the authority that he has succeeded to the “possession” of the vehicle. The possession contemplated is legal possession and therefore, a person can be said to have succeeded to the possession of the vehicle only if he shows that he has done so through one of the modes recognized by law. Such succession can be by survivorship, testamentary disposition, transfer or by the operation of law. Therefore, it is implicit in the rule itself that the person seeking such transfer would have to satisfy the authority that he had legally succeeded to the possession of the vehicle by producing necessary documents to support his claim. Or in other words, in order to satisfy the registering authority that he is a person entitled to transfer of the vehicle, he would have to satisfy the conditions stipulated by Sub-Rule (1) initially and thereafter, he would also have to produce the documents stipulated in Sub-Rule (2). The contention of the petitioner that the registering authority cannot insist on the production of the Legal Heirship Certificate as a condition for transfer of ownership of the vehicle cannot therefore be accepted._ _4. Since the Rule does not stipulate the production of any particular document to prove the claim of the applicant, it is sufficient that he produces an acceptable document to prove his entitlement for such transfer. The document may be the Legal Heirship Certificate, a Relationship Certificate issued by the Village Officer or a Succession Certificate, a will or a partnership deed or some other document that would show that he had succeeded to the possession of the vehicle. If there are more legal heirs to the deceased than one, or more persons who are equally entitled to such transfer, the consent_ W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 4 _of the others would also be necessary. Since the proceedings for transferring the ownership of a vehicle involves the transfer of a movable property of substantial value, the power has to be exercised by the authority with proper application of mind, after satisfying itself of the authenticity of the documents produced. The said decision is a quasi judicial one. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the registering authority cannot insist on the production of any other document that is not stipulated under Sub Rule-2 of Rule 56 cannot be accepted. I am supported in this view by an unreported decision of this Court dated 26.11.1993 in O.P.No.10465 of 1993. In the said case also, the question involved was whether the insistence on production of a Legal Heirship Certificate as a condition for transfer of a vehicle to the name of a daughter, was sustainable. After having considered the scope of the Rule as well as the other decisions on the point, P.K.Balasubramanyan J. (as he then was) has concluded the issue in the following words:_ _“In the light of these decisions it appears to me that the insistence on the production of legal heir certificate by the first respondent for considering the application for clearance certificate is not justified. It appears that the petitioner has not produced the original of Ext.P3 before the first respondent while seeking the issuance of the clearance certificate. Under those circumstances it appears to me that the proper course to follow is to direct the first respondent to issue the clearance certificate and to effect the transfer to ownership in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner producing before the first respondent a certificate from the Village Officer or the original of Ext.P3 marked here showing that she is the_ W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 5 _only heir of her deceased father or a certificate to the same effect from the concerned Tahsildar to substantiate the fact that she is the only heir of her father”._ _I am in respectful agreement with the above dictum. Therefore, it has to be held that, insistence on the production of one particular document alone, the Legal Heirship Certificate in the present case is also without justification. However, the requirement of producing some certificate or other document to prove the entitlement of the applicant for transfer of the vehicle to his or her name is absolutely necessary._ _7. Therefore, the insistence of the respondent on the production of a document showing the entitlement of the petitioner for transfer of the vehicle to her name cannot be found fault with. Any such transfer can be effected only on the applicant producing a proper document showing her entitlement for such transfer of permit or transfer of ownership._ _8. For the foregoing reasons, these Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions:_ _1) The respondent is directed to consider the applications for transfer of permits submitted by the petitioner with respect to vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/H 9440 covered by regular permit on the route MalayadivaramSreekrishnapuram and vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/K 1015 conducting services on the route, Elavancherry-Palakkad, permitting her to produce proper documents in proof of her entitlement to claim such transfer exclusively to her name and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously._ _2) The respondent shall consider the applications for temporary permits submitted by the petitioner to operate on_ W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 6 _the route Malayadivaram-Sreekrishnapuram with stage carriage vehicle No. KL-9/H 9440 and to operate on the route Elevancherry-Palakkad with stage carriage vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-9/K 1015 till the disposal of her applications for transfer of permits, on receipt of the documents referred to above in accordance with law and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the above circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.”_ In view of the law laid down by this Court in _**Bhagyalakshmy's case (supra)**_ , this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions : 1. On receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall submit a proper application for transfer of ownership of Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KL07/BV-3545 before the respondent, in conformity with the statutory requirements under Rule 56 Central Motor Vehicle Rules, within a period of ten days. 2. On receipt of such application, the respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in _**Bhagyalakshmy's case (supra)**_ , with notice to the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity of being heard. W.P.(C).No.38388 of 2017 7 2. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed as expeditiously as possible at any any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such application. ## **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** AV