ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

Heard Mr.M.Ravi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mrs. Usha and Mr.Vasanthkumar Vengadasane, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Hariharan, learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

2. This writ petition relates to an application for the transfer of a permit filed by the 4^th respondent, stating that he is a partner of one, M/s.Velayutham and Company. M/s.Velayutham and Company was established in 1979. It is a registered partnership firm. It was reconstituted in 1985. In addition to Mr.N.Gnanasekaran, the deponent in this writ petition, two other persons were made partners, namely, (i) Kalaiselvi and (ii) Ravichandrane.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents 3 was a mere caretaker of M/s.Velayutham and Company. It is urged that Ravichandrane passed away on 27.10.2009 and Kalaiselvi passed away on 28.07.2022. Consequently, the deponent pleads that he is the sole surviving partner entitled to all the benefits that accrue to the partnership firm, including the permit for a vehicle given to it by the 1^st respondent.

4. Prior to this writ petition, the 4^th respondent had filed W.P.No.3069 of 2026. In the said writ petition, he represented himself as the partner of M/s.Velayutham and Company. It was urged that M/s.Velayutham and Company has a bus permit for the route “Gorimedu to Maducarai” in respect of vehicle bearing registration No.PY-05/D-6969. The 4^th respondent has stated that he, along with one V.Sukumaran, had applied for transfer of permit from the name of M/s.Velayutham and Company to the name of V.Sukumaran. As no order had been passed by the State Transport Authority on the said application, he came forward with that writ petition. In that writ petition, it was stated that the transfer of permit would have been considered by a committee and therefore, directions were given to the committee to pass appropriate orders in the said application. The present writ petition is a sequel to that writ petition.

5. It is the plea of Mr.Ravi, that on the date on which Form-V was filed with the Registrar of Firms in Puducherry under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Ravichandrane was no more and that, the signatures of both the petitioner and Mr.Ravichandrane found therein are fabricated and forged. He further adds that the 3^rd respondent was a mere caretaker/Manager of the firm, committed a fraud in connivance with others to make the 4^th respondent a partner of the firm. He further pleads that the State Transport Authority, while exercising its power under Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on coming to know of the fraud played on the deponent herein has the power to examine such fraud. He relies upon Rule 78 of the Puducherry Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter PMV Rules) read with Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter the M.V.Act) to urge that the State Transport Authority is not bound to transfer permits in an automaton manner and has to decide on all objections placed before it including the alleged acts of forgery and fabrication. Hence, he states that the objections given to the authority on 09.12.2025 would have to be considered.

6. Mrs.V.Usha, similarly urges that in terms of Rule 78 of PMV Rules read with Section 82 of the MV Act, the 1^st respondent proposes to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner to that end, it had also addressed a letter to the Registrar of Partnerships, Puducherry seeking verification of the genuineness of Form-I and Form-V relating to reconstitution of the firm, M/s. Velayutham and Company. She adds that the State Transport Authority has sought for clarification from the Police Stations situated at Dhanvantari Nagar and Ariyankuppam, with respect to the status of the complaints lodged by the objector before those concerned Police Stations. She says that the permit records and firm documents have to be corroborated by conducting a detailed examination. Once these verification report