ORDER

In this case, Shri. H. Eshwarappa was the holder of State Carriage Permit No. 9/92-93. He passed away on November 16, 2011, and the petitioner, his son, succeeded to the possession of the vehicle covered under the permit. The petitioner applied under Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for renewal and transfer of the permit granted to his deceased father. The first respondent approved the petitioner's request and renewed and transferred the permit to him.

2. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 filed a revision petition under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging this decision. The Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of renewal and transfer, prompting this petition.

3. Shri. Puttige R. Ramesh, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner, argues that although there is no provision for renewing a permit in favor of a deceased person, Section 82 of the M.V. Act allows the successor to apply for transfer. He contends that despite the belated filing of the application by the petitioner, the renewal and transfer were rightfully granted, with a penalty imposed under Section 86(5) of the M.V. Act. Therefore, he asserts that the tribunal's decision disregarded Sections 82 and 86(5) and is untenable.

4. In contrast, Respondent No.3's counsel argues that there is no provision in the Act for renewing a permit in favor of a deceased person. He asserts that the tribunal correctly set aside the renewal, alleging fraud and misrepresentation by the petitioner in obtaining it. The learned Assistant Government Attorney reiterates Respondent No.3's contentions.

5. Upon consideration of the submissions, the permit was renewed in favor of the petitioner's deceased father, and then transferred to the petitioner in 2019. This issue was addressed by this Court in W.P.No.3923/2022, where it was ruled as follows in paragraphs 11 to 16:

"11. Section 82(5) of the Act provides for transfer of permit when the holder of the permit dies and the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may for a period of three months use the permit as if it had been granted to himself.

12. Section 82(3) of the Act specifies that transport authority may on an application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of the permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding the possession of vehicle covered by the permit and proviso to Sub Section 3 of Section 82 of the Act specifies that the authority may entertain an application made after expiry of the said period of three months, if it is satisfied that the application was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified.

13. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19946/2007 c/w W.P.No.19947/2007 and W.P.No.11654/2009 disposed of on 01.06.2009 at paragraph 22 has held as follows:

"22. Having regard to the observations of this Court and the Apex Court supra and applying them to the facts of these cases, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner has not suffered any legal grievance or lost any right or liberty due to the orders of the KSTAT & RTA and hence have no locus-standi to maintain these petitions. It cannot be disputed that in the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the 3rd respondent is entitled to have the cancelled permit restored, transferred and motor vehicle replaced by an order and endorsement on the permit. The direction to pay compounding fee to restore a cancelled permit in the exercise of discretion by the KSTAT & RTA, cannot be said to be illegal or to have occasioned a legal injury to the petitioners."

14. The Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15603/2014 disposed of on 28.11.2014 at paragraph 9 has held as follows:

"9. As rightly held by the Tribunal unless failure of justice has occasioned and unless the order transferring permit has affected the sector operator, he could not make any grievance. It is not, as if, there is no power vested with the