The extension of the permit transfer period to three years is unjustified; the original one-year limit reinstated due to lack of rationale from the authority.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records of the respondent, the State Transport Authority, Puducherry, in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 27.11.2019 so far as it relates to substituting the proceedings of the respondent dated 19.12.2001 to the effect that the permit should stand in the name of the individual in whose name the permit stood for a minimum period of three years and if any transfer of permit is sought within the period of three years, then the permit itself will be liable for cancellation. The petitioner is deeply aggrieved by the stipulation that the permit should stand in the name of the holder of the permit for a minimum period of three years and seeks to quash the same.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it had been stated that the petitioner is a stage carriage operator with permit to ply an inter- state route from Pondicherry to Karaikal via., Cuddalore, Portonova, Chidambaram, Mayiladuthurai, Kollumangud and Nedungadu. There are also shuttle trips between Chidambaram and Karaikal. It is covered by an Inter-State Agreement dated 12.04.1985. The permit in the name of the petitioner is valid till 31.05.2025. The Fitness Certificate of the vehicle is valid till 19.10.2025. The Insurance of the vehicle was valid till 12.08.2024. I am confident that it would have been renewed by this time. This permit was originally held by one P.Lakshmanan. Thereafter, it was transferred to the name of the petitioner by the respondent, by proceedings dated 08.02.2023. The said transfer of permit was also countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Chennai by proceedings dated 28.03.2023.

3. The petitioner, however, found it economically difficult to maintain the service. He therefore, sought to transfer it again in the name of Rogini Rajesh who was residing at Karaikal. A joint application dated 02.05.2024 was filed in accordance with Rule 78(i) of the PONDICHERRY MOTOR VEHICLES RULES , 1989 and necessary fees had also been paid. The transfer application was returned by the officer of the respondent by stating that in the minutes of the State Transport Authority of Union Territory of Puducherry dated 27.11.2019, it had been stipulated that there could be no transfer of permit within a period of three years. The petitioner obtained the permit on 08.02.2023 / 28.03.2023. He had made an application seeking transfer on 02.05.2024 after a period of one year. The restriction, however, imposed by the respondent was that such transfer cannot be even applied for a period of three years.

4. The respondent relied on the proceedings of the meeting dated27.11.2019. By that proceedings, they had altered the time period which was in existence from 2001 onwards and which had been brought into effect by proceedings dated 19.12.2001. On and from 19.12.2001 till 27.11.2019, the period was one year. This was increased to three years. The resolution copy had been produced before this Court. The reason for such increase in the time period has not been stated. The only obvious reason which could be inferred is to prevent frequent transfers of permit. There was an inherent suspicion that frequent transfers would indicate that it was trafficking in permits. In order to curb such frequent transfer / trafficking in the permits, the period, according to the respondent had been increased from one year to three years. The alternate which could have been imposed by the respondent is to restrict the number of transfers. But increasing the number of years within which a transfer cannot be sought, defies logic. It could have been increased from one year to one year and six months.