IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36747 of 2009(K)
1. DEVASIA KURIAN, EZHAPARAMPIL,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUBHASH CYRIAC
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.36747 of 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging
Ext.P3 proceedings of the Joint Regional Transport Officer,
Kanhangad refusing to convert the vehicle as a light motor
vehicle for personal use. According to the petitioner,
though his vehicle has been issued with a contract
carriage permit, due to ill health, he is not able to use the
same as a contract carriage. Therefore, the petitioner
wants to use the same only for his personal purposes.
According to the petitioner, the relevant rule permits
conversion of the vehicle to a light motor vehicle intended
for personal use.
2. According to the learned Senior Government
Pleader, the vehicle was involved in a criminal case and
the vehicle was re-registered without disclosing its
previous registration. According to the petitioner, he had
purchased it from one Vijayan of Adimaly who had
registered the vehicle in his name. The Government
wpc No.36747/2009 2
Pleader submits that there is a racket with deep roots
across the State, involved in the registration and re-
registration of vehicles. Therefore, if the conversion of the
vehicle is permitted, the authorities would lose control
over the same and it is apprehend that the vehicle itself
would disappear.
3. The counsel for the petitioner points out that the
vehicle has been put in custody of the petitioner as per
orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court, Hosdurg in Criminal M.C.No.3567/1997 dated
6.1.1998. As per the said order, the petitioner has the
responsibility to produce the vehicle on the orders of the
Court.
4. Since the petitioner has only been put in interim
custody of the vehicle, as per orders of the Magistrate’s
Court, with liability to produce the same as and when
required, I do not think there is any justification for
disallowing the conversion that is sought for. It cannot be
disputed that the conversion that the petitioner has sought
for is permissible in accordance with the rules. I also
notice from Ext.P2 judgment of this Court that the
wpc No.36747/2009 3
petitioner had earlier been permitted to pay the tax and to
renew the permit without insisting on production of the
original Registration Certificate, which itself is in the
custody of the Court. In the above circumstances, the
refusal of the third respondent to allow the conversion
that was sought for is without any justification.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P10
is set aside. The third respondent is directed to consider
the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with
law and in the light of the observations made above and to
pass fresh orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and
at any rate within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
K.SURENDRA MOHAN,
JUDGE
css/