Sunilkumar C.P. and Baiju v. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur; The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur; The Additional Registering Authority, Irinjalakuda; Addl. R4 impleaded K.A. Sidharthan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** ## **THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 24834 of 2018 --------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS :** **---------------** **1 SUNILKUMAR C.P., S/O.C.V. PADMANABHAN (LATE), CHINNANGATH HOUSE, KADUPPASSERY.P.O., THRISSUR - 680 697.** **2 BAIJU, S/O.SIDHARTHAN, KATHNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OORAKKAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR.** **BY ADV.SRI.P.DEEPAK** ## **RESPONDENTS :** **---------------** **1. THE REGIIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR - 680 003.** **2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, THRISSUR - 680 003.** **3. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, IRINJALAKUDA - 680 121.** ***ADDL.R4.IMPLEADED** **R4. K.A.SIDHARTHAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, KOTHNAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.KARUVANNUR-680 711.** **ADDLR4 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 02/08/2018 IN I.A.NO.13989 OF 2018** **R BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 24834 of 2018 (D)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS : -----------------------** **EXHIBIT P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF KL-08/AE 4525. EXHIBIT P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT VALID TILL 12.8.2018 ISSUED TO KL-08/AE 4525. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 20.6.2018. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL DATED 17.5.2018. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 27.6.2018. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER DATED 5.7.2018. EXHIBIT P6A: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 5.7.2018 SWORN TO BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9.7.2018. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2010(2)KLT 431/2010 SCC ONLINE KERALA 4816. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ---------------------** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **AV/6/8** ## **ANIL K.NARENDRAN, J. --------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 ---------------------------------------Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2018** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 communication dated 09.07.2018 of the 2[nd] respondent Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, whereby consideration of Ext.P6 application made by the 1[st] petitioner under sub-section (3) of Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for transfer of Ext.P2 regular permit on the route Mothirakkanni-IJK-Thirumudikunnu Leprosy Hospital, in respect of the stage carriage bearing Registration No.KL08/AE/4525 covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration, stands deferred till the petitioner produces the legalheirship certificate, so as to enable the registering authority to effect such transfer of permit. 2. The registered owner/permit holder of the vehicle in question expired on 06.06.2018, as borne out from Ext.P3 death certificate. According to the 1[st] petitioner, he succeeded possession of the said vehicle in terms of Ext.P4 Will stated to have been executed by the deceased registered owner. Relying on Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in _**P.Bhagyalashmy v. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad [2010 (2) KLT 431]**_ , the petitioner would contend that insistence of legal heirship certificate for effecting transfer of permit based on an application under sub-section (3) of Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally unsustainable. W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the 2[nd] respondent has to take an appropriate decision on Ext.P6 application made by the 1[st] petitioner, taking into account Ext.P4 Will. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the additional 4[th] respondent is dispensed with. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that, since the vehicle number and other details are not mentioned in Ext.P4 Will, the 2[nd] respondent is not in a position to proceed further with Ext.P6 application. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that Ext.P4 Will contains the details of the permit, which is sufficient for considering the request made in Ext.P6. By Ext.P7 communication issued by the 2[nd] respondent, the 1[st] petitioner is directed to produce legal heirship certificate. 6. In _**P.Bhagyalashmy's case (supra)**_ , this Court held that since Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules does not stipulate 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. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of the said judgment read thus : W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 3 _“5. Though R.56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not specifically stipulate the production of a Legal Heirship Certificate in support of an application for transfer of ownership of a vehicle consequent upon the death of the owner and permit holder, a reading of the provision makes it sufficiently clear that the transfer of a vehicle cannot be ordered without proper proof of succession to the properties of the deceased. The motor vehicle being a very valuable item of movable property, any decision permitting transfer of ownership of the same can be taken only with proper application of mind._ _6. Rule 56 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows:_ - _“56. Transfer of ownership on death of owner of the vehicle:--_ - _1) Where the owner of a motor vehicle dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle may for a period of three months, use the vehicle as if it has been transferred to him where such person has, within thirty days of the death of the owner informs the registering authority the occurrence of the death of the owner and of his own intention to use the vehicle._ - _2) The person referred to in sub-rule (1) shall apply in Form 31 within the period of three months to the said registering authority for the transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name, accompanied by --_ - _a) the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81;_ - _b) death certificate in relation to the registered owner;_ - _c) the certificate of registration; and_ - _d) the certificatate of insurance._ _A reading of sub-r.(1) of R.56 makes it abundantly clear that the right to use the vehicle of a deceased person is 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_ W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 4 _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 sub-r.(2) of R.56, it is the person who is referred to in sub-r.(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 possession of the vehicle can also move under sub-r.(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-r.(1) initially and thereafter, he would also have to produce the documents stipulated in sub-r.(2). The contention of the petitioner that the registering authority cannot insist on the_ W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 5 _production of the Legal Heirship Certificate as a condition for transfer of ownership of the vehicle cannot therefore be accepted._ _7. 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 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-r.(2) of R.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_ W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 6 _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 of 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 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._ _8. 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.”_ In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider Ext.P6 application made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, strictly in accordance W.P.(C).No.24834 of 2018 7 with law, taking note of the law laid down by this Court in the decision referred to supra, with notice to the 1[st] petitioner, the additional 4[th] respondent and also to other legal heirs of the deceased registered owner. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the claim made by the 1[st] petitioner relying on Ext.P4 Will and it is for the 2[nd] respondent to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law. **Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** AV/23/8