Due process requires notification and opportunity to respond before administrative actions that affect rights are taken.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 order passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam, dated 29.09.2025, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.28093 of 2025.

2. The petitioner had obtained a transfer of permit vide Ext.P2 proceedings on 23.09.2017. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28729 of 2021, which was disposed of by judgment dated 09.02.2022 directing the Secretary, RTA, to consider the application for transfer of permit with notice to the financier. Though this Court directed to pass orders, no orders were passed, which forced the petitioner to again file W.P.(C) No.28093 of 2025, which was disposed of on 07.08.2025, directing the RTA to consider the application preferred by the petitioner for endorsing the transfer of permit, retaining the hypothecation agreement after hearing the petitioner and the financier.

3. In purported compliance with the directions, Ext.P7 order was passed, finding that Ext.P2, which permitted the transfer, is a void document as the transfer of permit was made based on false and irrelevant documents and therefore, Rule 178(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules is applicable. On that basis, the request for endorsement of the transfer effected as per Ext.P2 was rejected.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was never put to notice of any action under Rule 178(3) before passing the impugned order. On what basis the authority concluded that false and irrelevant documents were produced to get the transfer of permit allowed is not informed to the petitioner. Without either sending a notice or informing the basis for arriving at a conclusion that the transfer granted in this case is void, Ext.P7 order was passed, and for that short reason, the said order has to be quashed. The order also threatens further consequential action, which is all the more reason why the petitioner should have been put on notice if the authority feels that the transfer of the permit was wrongly granted based on false or irrelevant documents.

5. Under such circumstances, Ext.P7 is quashed. There will be a direction to the first respondent to issue a notice to the petitioner specifically alleging the basis for taking action under Rule 178(3) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , in case the authority feels that action is to be taken under Rule

178(3). If any action is proposed under Rule 178(3), notice shall be issued to the petitioner within three weeks from today. If no action is taken within the aforesaid time, the competent among the respondents will proceed to comply with the directions in Ext.P6 judgment within two months from today. The impugned order is quashed, and the writ petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.