A.L.Hind Tours & Travels Pvt. Ltd vs The Regional Transport Officer on 24 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4777 of 2009(R)


1. A.L.HIND TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/02/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ---------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No. 4777 of 2009
                 ------------------------------------
             Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009

                            JUDGMENT

Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P6.

2. Exhibit P1 is the registration certificate of the vehicle

bearing registration No. KA-01-C-8206, granted by the

Registering Authority, Bangalore. Exhibit P1 also shows that

fitness certificate has also been issued in respect of the above

vehicle. Exhibit P2 is the Insurance Certificate and Exhibit P3 is

the All India Tourist Permit granted in respect of the vehicle in

question. Subsequently, the petitioner wanted to transfer the

vehicle to Kerala and Exhibit P4 is the no objection certificate

granted. He made Exhibit P5 application for assignment of new

registration mark on removal of the vehicle to Kerala state and

that was rejected by Exhibit P6. In Exhibit P6, reasons stated for

rejecting Exhibit P5, reads as under;

“On inspection it is found that at the rear portion

of the longitudinal member of the chassis frame has

been sheared and provides luggage boot; at the rear

portion of the vehicle 9 seats were provided over

W.P.(C) No. 4777/2009
2

locally fabricated members and not supported by the

original chassis frame. On measurement and

verification with Registration Certificate the wheel base

is found that 222″ and the overhang is found as 140″.

It is more than 60% of the actual wheel base.

As per the above inspection report the vehicle KA

01/C 8206 does not comply the chapter VII of M.V.Act,

1988 and rules made there under. Hence, the

application for re-assignment in respect of KA 01/C

8206 hereby rejected with direction to produce the

vehicle after complying the Chapter VII of M.V. Act,

1988.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

Section 52 is totally irrelevant in so far as the facts of the case

are concerned. He also relied on the judgments rendered by this

Court in similarly situated cases, copies of which are Exhibits P8

and P14.

4. I heard learned Government pleader . In my view,

Exhibits P8 and P14 judgments rendered by this Court, relied on

W.P.(C) No. 4777/2009
3

by the counsel for the petitioner fully covers the issue in this writ

petition. In the first judgment, it has been held that unless there

are structural changes, Section 52 is not attracted. Following the

said judgment, a case very much similar to that of the petitioner

was disposed of by Exhibit P14 judgment.

5. In the light of these two judgments of this Court,

Exhibit P6 shall stand quashed and Exhibit P5 application shall be

reconsidered by the first respondent and registration sought

shall be granted.

Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the

1st respondent for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

scm