The petitioner is the owner of the stage carriage KL-5/N 902, operating on the route Kalkoonthal Kottayam. He proposes to transfer the said vehicle, along with its regular permit, in favour of the 3rd respondent herein. A joint application was filed for the transfer of the permit before the R.T.A., Idukki. The said application was allowed by the R.T.A., by Ext.P1 decision, subject to clearance of tax arrears in respect of the stage carriage KL-06/A 3299. The said order reads as follows:

“Heard the applicants. Transfer allowed subject to the clearance of tax arrears in respect of S/C KL-06/A 3299 which is owned by the first applicant.”

The stipulation in the above order, regarding clearance of tax arrears concerning another vehicle, is challenged in this Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner submits, the vehicle KL-06/A 3299 has been sold by him to one Mr. Moidu, S/o Bava, Moolayil House, Pezhakkappilly, Mulavoor, Muvattupuzha. The arrears of tax relates to the period, after the vehicle was sold. When he was called upon to pay the tax in relation to the said vehicle, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court, by Ext.P2 order, directed the R.T.O., Idukki and the Deputy Tahsildar (Revenue Recovery), Kottayam to seize the vehicle and sell it in public auction, to realize the tax arrears o that vehicle. The petitioner submits, in view of the above position, there is no justification for imposing the impugned condition in Ext.P1. According to him, none of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder, governing transfer of permits, authorizes the R.T.A. to impose such a condition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied on the decisions of this Court in Santakumari v. R.T.O. Kozhikode (1975 KLT 580) and Padmanabhan v. R.T.A., Kannur (1993 (1) KLT 75). Though those decisions relate to transfer of ownership of motor vehicles, the principles laid down therein will apply to transfer of permits also, it is contended.

3. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents also. It is submitted by him that the vehicle KL-06/A 3299 could not be traced. The petitioner continues to be the registered owner of that vehicle. Therefore, he is liable to pay the tax. If the joint application for transfer is allowed, the same will have the effect of transferring one of the assets of the defaulter to a stranger. So, in public interest, the impugned condition was imposed, it is submitted.

4. The provisions concerning transfer of permit are contained in Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The relevant portion of the said section reads as follows:

“82. Transfer of permit:-- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorized by the permit.”

Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 82 deals with transfer of permit on the death of a permit holder. The Rule which governs the transfer of permit is rule 178 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the relevant portion of which reads as follows:

“178. Permit-Transfer of:-- (1) When the holder of a permit desires to transfer the permit to some other persons under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Act, he shall, together with the person to whom he desires to make the transfer, make a joint application in writing to the Transport Authority by which the permit was issued setting forth the reasons for the proposed transfer. The fee for transfer of permit shall be the same as prescribed for the grant or renewal of permits under rule 164.

(2) On receipt of an application under sub-rule (1) the Transport authority may require the holder of the permit and the other party to state in writing whether any premium, payment or othe