A will must be validated in a competent court for succession rights to a transport permit, with legal heirs requiring unanimous consent for transfers.

ORDER :

These revision petitions challenge the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, directing the 1^st respondent/Regional Transport Authority, Tiruvannamalai, to transfer the permit in favour of the 3^rd respondent, in respect of stage carriage bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AZ-6395, plying on Devikapuram - Sathanur route.

2.I have heard Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the revision petitions, Mrs.Radha Gopalan, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent in both the revision petitions and Mr.N.Muthuvel, learned Government Advocate (CS) for the 1^st respondent in CRP.No.4038 of 2022 and respondents 1 and 2 in CRP.No.4200 of 2022.

3.Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners in both the revision petitions would submit that admittedly the mother of the parties was holding the permit for the above said route. The mother was survived by two sons and five daughters and it is alleged by the grandson, P.Vignesh, through one of the daughters, that the mother had executed a Will, bequeathing the said permit to the said grandson. He would invite my attention to a writ petition filed by the mother, Baby Saroja in W.P.No.15436 of 2015, where one of the daughters sought for return of the Registration Certificate and Renewed Stage Carriage Permit for the period 12.01.2016 to 11.01.2021 and also the Insurance Policy relating to the vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN-25-AZ-6395. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, holding that pendency of the civil suit for partition will not come in the way of the authority to return the documents to the permit holder and the writ petition came to be allowed. Subsequently, the said Baby Saroja, the mother died on 30.08.2021. On her demise, the sons of R.V.Janarthanan and R.V.Kuppusamy sent death intimation letter to the authority and the grandson, P.Vignesh independently informed the authority about the demise of Baby Saroja, basing his claim on a registered Will and a no objection from his mother, Janaki. He also staked a claim for transfer of the permit. Subsequent to the death intimation issued by the sons, one of them namely R.V.Janarthanan alone applied for transfer of permit in his name, enclosing the legal heirship certificate. Even according to Mr.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioner, all the daughters had given no objection for transfer of permit in favour of P.Vignesh, the grandson. The son R.V.Janarthanan therefore filed W.P.No.21703 of 2021 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 06.12.2021, directed the 1^st respondent to decide the applications filed by both the son R.V.Janarthanan as well as the grandson, P.Vignesh, within a period of six months, in accordance with law and especially, in the context of Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, after giving opportunity to the both the parties, as well as the other legal heirs.

4.This Court, in the meantime, directed that the vehicle shall be permitted to be plied by the writ petitioner, as an interim arrangement and by giving such a permission to the petitioner, it would not confer any right on the petitioner, as the decision has to be taken by the 1^st respondent, on merits, after conducting due enquiry. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, a hearing was conducted on 26.02.2022 and it was found that the son R.V.Janarthanan had not complied with Rule 214 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and hence, his application was rejected. Similarly,