The petitioner seeks consideration of the application at Exhibit P6, which is filed to renew a regular permit which was valid till 23.03.2010. Though the prayer is only for consideration of the same, the background facts are to be noticed.
2. The petitioner's husband, one Karunakaran, was holding the regular permit, which was valid between 2000 to 2005. On expiry, the same was validated for another five years in the name of Karunakaran itself. However, on 29.12.2008, the husband of the petitioner died. The regular permit was not transferred to anyone else and stood renewed in the name of a dead person. It is stated that the petitioner's son, one Kamalanandan, had obtained renewal of the permit in the name of the deceased father and had continued the service. The renewal obtained was for five years from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2015.
WP(C).No.27780 of 2014 - 2 -
3. On 27.11.2012, the petitioner's son Kamalanandan is also stated to have passed away. The petitioner was operating the service thenceforth, in the name of her deceased husband. An accident occurred with respect to the vehicle on 01.04.2014; when, on verification of the records by the police authorities, it was found that the permit was in the name of a dead person. Immediately thereafter, a transfer application was filed on 04.04.2014. The transfer was allowed on 19.05.2014. But, later on, noticing that the transfer made was of a permit which existed in the name of a deceased person, the permit itself was revoked by Exhibit P4, against which Exhibit P5 appeal was filed, which was dismissed by Exhibit P8 judgment of the Tribunal.
4. Considering Exhibit P8 judgment of the Tribunal, this Court cannot find any infirmity in Exhibit P4 order. Admittedly the permit was continued in the name of a deceased person and the transfer made was from the name of a deceased person to the petitioner's name. There can, hence, be no infirmity in the action of the Department in revoking the permit.
WP(C).No.27780 of 2014 - 3 -
5. The only argument placed before this Court is that, in fact, when the Tribunal was considering the case, the petitioner had filed Exhibit P7 affidavit bringing it to the notice of the Tribunal that an application at Exhibit P6 was filed before the authority for renewal of permit in the name of the petitioner, as also with an application for delay condonation; from the date on which the permit expired in 2010. Only in the circumstance of the operation of the service in the permit having been continued and the hardship said to have been faced by the petitioner, who has lost her husband and son, this Court would direct consideration of Exhibit P6, which would be independent of the order of revocation which has been confirmed by the Tribunal. Exhibit P6 application shall be considered within a period of two months. It is specifically noticed that this Court has not gone into the merits; but, only directed consideration of the renewal application in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )