This product is Licenced to:Sheeji K KLT Online Print Pages 1 of 15 24.08.2018 ©2016 Kerala Law Times Regional Transport Authority v. Abdul Salam (Ashok Bhushan, C.J.) 87 was paid. There is no explanation as to why the plaintiff was not so put in possession of the property even after the payment of a major portion of the sale consideration to the defendants. That is a strong indication to show that Ext.A1 agreement even if genuine was not intended to be followed up by a sale deed between the parties. We take cue from the decision of the Supreme Court in Tejram v. Patirambhau ((1997) 9 SCC 634) wherein the agreement was construed as one evidencing loan transaction. 7. It is unsafe to grant a decree either for specific performance or for return of the advance amount on the basis of Ext.A1 agreement and normally we would have dismissed the suit in toto. But the defendants fairly concede that a sum of ` 75,000/- was availed as loan on the date of Ext.A1 agreement from Mr.V.L.Ittiachen. The said Ittiachen was a Director of the plaintiff company along with his wife and three sons evident by Ext.A4 Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association. It is discernible from the conspectus of events that the plaintiff company was a family concern and that Ittiachen had a say in the monetary transactions. The defendants are willing to repay the sum of ` 75,000/- with interest and the plaintiff is also not averse to receive the amount in the circumstances. Therefore a judgment on admission in terms of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is passed for a sum of ` 75,000/- in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. The said amount will undoubtedly carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of Ext.A1 agreement (13.9.1991) till the date of payment by the defendants. The defendants are at liberty to move appropriately for return of the documents allegedly retained by the said Ittiachen in the course of transaction. The Appeal Suit is allowed in part and the Memorandum of Cross Objections is dismissed. No costs. 2016 (3) KLT 87 Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr.Justice Ashok Bhushan & Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Shaffique Regional Transport Authority v. Abdul Salam W.A. Nos.2486, 2455 & 2769 of 2015 Decided on 6th April, 2016 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 86, 87 & 2(31) — Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (Kerala), Rules 159, 174 & 217 — There is no prohibition under the 1988 Act and the 1989 Rules for a permit holder in withdrawing the vehicle from the service but in that event he has to surrender the permit. Held: In the appeals before us the request of the petitioners is to issue a clearance certificate permitting them to withdraw/detach the vehicle from the This product is Licenced to:Sheeji K KLT Online Print Pages 2 of 15 24.08.2018 ©2016 Kerala Law Times 88 2016 (3) Kerala Law Times permit and allow the permit to continue. The petitioners want to keep their permits alive, so that in future if they want they can revive the service. There is no prohibition under the 1988 Act and the 1989 Rules for a permit holder in withdrawing the vehicle from the service but in that event he has to surrender the permit. But without surrendering the vehicle, petitioners want to obtain permission of the authority to detach the vehicle from the permit which is not permissible under the statutory scheme. (para.15) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 50, 51 & 48 — With regard to transfer of vehicle no clearance certificate is required. Section 51 contains a special provision regarding motor vehicles subject to hire purchase agreement wherein S.51(4) provides no entry regarding the transfer of ownership of any motor vehicle which is held under the said agreement shall be made in the certificate of registration except with the written consent of the person whose name has been specified in the certificate of registration as the person with whom the registered owner has entered into the said agreement. Thus with regard to transfer of vehicle no clearance certificate is required as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the context of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 requirement is with regard to a certificate that no tax or other dues are pending against the vehicle. (para.18) 1999 (2) KLT 434; 2002 (3) KLT 374; 2000 (1) KLJ 141; 2006 (3) KLT 1013; 2005 (1) KLJ 205; 2015 (4) KLT 590; 2005 (1) KLT 987 & 1991 (2) KLT 203 Referred to Spl.Government Pleader (Girija Gopal) For Appellant P.Deepak & I.Dinesh Menon For Respondents JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, C.J. These three Writ Appeals, raising common questions of law, have been heard together and are deciding by this common judgment. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, who was the respondent in the Writ Petitions has come up in these appeals against the separate judgments of learned Single Judges by which direction has been issued to the Regional Transport Officer for issuing a permitless certificate as prayed for by the Writ Petitioners or to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for the said certificate. Parties shall be referred to as described in the Writ Petitions. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the Writ Appeals are as follows: W.A.No.2486 of 20151: 3. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21.08.2015 in W.P.(C) No.25240 of 2015. Petitioner was granted a regular permit to conduct service on the route Chenappady-Erattupetta in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-34/3895. The Permit was valid upto 16.11.2019. Petitioner made an application (Ext.P2 dated 12.08.2015) to the R.T.O. stating that the R.T.A. on 06.07.2015 issued a new permit to petitioner’s aforesaid vehicle This product is Licenced to:Sheeji K KLT Online Print Pages 3 of 15 24.08.2018 ©2016 Kerala Law Times Regional Transport Authority v. Abdul Salam (Ashok Bhushan, C.J.) 89 with a clause that the current permit for this vehicle is not liable to be surrendered. Petitioner requested that a clearance certificate be issued to the current permit in order to obtain a new written permit. Petitioner on the very next day filed the Writ Petition praying for the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to forthwith issue permitless certificate on Exhibit P2 application, releasing stage carriage bearing registration number KL-34/3895 from Exhibit PI regular permit issued to it to conduct service on the route CHENAPPADY- ERATTUPETTA without insisting on surrender/cancellation of the permit. 2. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Honourable Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Petitioner’s prayer in the Writ Petition was to issue a permitless certificate in respect of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-34/3895 by keeping the permit in suspended animation. The intention was to detach the vehicle from regular permit No.P.St.5/21784/2014. Learned Single Judge by judgment dated 21.08.2015 directed the R.T.A. to issue a permitless certificate as requested by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of judgment on condition that the petitioner shall produce records relating to the vehicle intended to be replaced within four months from the date of clearance. W.A.No.2455 of 2015: 4. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 19.05.2015 in W.P.(C) No.14674 of 2015. Petitioner is a regular permit holder of stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-35/F-4577 on the route Uthimoodu-Ernakulam South. The said permit was valid till 04.03.2015. Petitioner has applied for renewal of the permit. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has come with a Scheme whereby there is prohibition of granting and renewing of permit as super class services. Notifications were challenged in this Court and the matter was heard by a Division Bench in W.A. No.668 of 2014. Petitioner was issued a communication that he should stop his service. Petitioner made an application on 11.05.2015 praying for issuance of a clearance certificate in respect of vehicle KL-35/F-4577 by keeping the permit under suspended animation. In the application, Ext.P3, petitioner has made the following prayer: “Hence I most humbly request your good self to issue clearance certificate in respect of the vehicle KL-35/F-4577 by keeping the permit covered by it on the route Uthimoodu- Ernakulam South as Express service under suspended animation, subject to the decision in W.A.No.668 of 2014 and connected cases. Thanking you.” Petitioner filed the Writ Petition after a week of submitting the application praying for the following reliefs: “i. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction, directing the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam to issue Clearance Certificate This product is Licenced to:Sheeji K KLT Online Print Pages 4 of 15 24.08.2018 ©2016 Kerala Law Times 90 2016 (3) Kerala Law Times by considering Ext.P3 request, releasing stage carriage KL-35/F-4577 from Exhibit P1 permit issued to it to conduct service on the route Uthimoodu-Ernakulam South without insisting on surrender/cancellation of the permit.