HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, J
SUMATHYKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 4195/2014
Permit - Writ Petition - W.P.(C) No.2029/2014, Bhagyalekshmi v. RTA Palakkad - The court directed the issuance of a temporary permit provided the petitioner produces necessary documents to establish her legal heirship and that there are no outstanding liabilities.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the non-issuance of a temporary permit following the death of her son, the original permit holder, stating her application should be considered despite being delayed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for a temporary permit had to be considered by the appropriate authority, stressing that necessary documents confirming legal heirship and settlement of liabilities must be produced.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's application for a temporary permit should be considered despite delays and previous objections?
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that, provided the petitioner presents the required documentation showing her entitlement and absence of liabilities, the temporary permit should be issued.
Final Decision: Writ petition disposed of with directions to issue the temporary permit.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner in the above writ petition is aggrieved by the non-issuance of a temporary permit which she had applied for as per Ext.P2. Admittedly, the petitioner's son was a permit holder operating on the strength of a regular permit in the route Thiruvalla - Ranny. The permit stood expired on 05.01.2014 and the petitioner is the sole surviving leagal heir of the deceased son and hence filed an application for renewal of permit and transfer of permit in her name.
2. The application was admittedly filed delayed, but the same is said to have been rejected for other reasons, which has been challenged by the petitioner WPC.4195/2014 in W.P(C) No.2029/2014. In that case, the rejection was on the ground that the petitioner had not produced the legal heirship certificate and also on the ground that an objection was raised by the wife of the permit holder. There was also a further objection that the No Objection Certificate from the Financier was not produced. In the said case, the wife of the deceased son of the petitioner, is, now impleaded as the additional respondent and notice has been issued. The same has been posted for appearance of the objector.
3. In the present case, however, the grievance is that the application for temporary permit is not being considered. Admittedly, there was a regular permit in the said route in which the petitioner's son had been operating. With respect to the No Objection WPC.4195/2014 Certificate from the Financier, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire liability has been settled and endorsement has been made in the Registration Certificate. It is also submitted that the certificate evidencing the relationship has been produced before the appropriate authority.
4. In the above circumstance, it is for the appropriate authority to consider the application for temporary permit, in accordance with the law and following the dictum laid down in Bhagyalekshmi v. RTA Palakkad (2010 (2) KLT 431). The petitioner, hence, if producing the documents as prescribed in the aforesaid decision, showing relationship with the permit holder and convincing the appropriate authority that there is no subsisting liability to the WPC.4195/2014 financier, necessarily the temporary permit shall be issued, that too within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Writ petition disposed of.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.