P.N.Rajesh Kumar vs Regional Transport Officer on 9 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7255 of 2010(F)


1. P.N.RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 32,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :09/03/2010

 O R D E R
                        K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
               ------------------------------------------------------------
                        W.P(C) NO: 7255 OF 2010
               -----------------------------------------------------------
                   Dated this the 9th March, 2010.

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a Mahindra Bolero Camper Gold

Vehicle. The vehicle was purchased by the petitioner for

transporting the employees of the petitioner to different parts of

the State for the purpose of servicing the generators supplied by

Kirloskar. The petitioner produced the vehicle before the first

respondent and sought registration of the same as a non-transport

vehicle. However, the first respondent refused to register the

vehicle as a non-transport vehicle. According to the first

respondent, the vehicle would have to be painted with highway

yellow color as provided in Rule 304 of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules

and should be registered as a transport vehicle. The petitioner

challenges the action of the first respondent.

2. According to the petitioner, the issue in this case is

squarely covered by the dictum in the decision reported in Cherian

v. Transport Commissioner {2009(2) KLT 583}. The learned

Government Pleader fairly concedes that the issue is covered by the

above decision.

WPC 7255/2010 2

3. In the decision referred to above also the vehicle involved

was a Mahindra Bolero Camper 4WD vehicle. After considering the

relevant provisions this Court has held that the vehicle need be

registered only as a non-transport vehicle. It has been further

clarified that it is up to the authorities to re-classify the vehicle as a

transport vehicle if it is brought to the notice of the authority that

the vehicle is used for carriage of goods.

4. In view of the above dictum, this writ petition can be

disposed of directing the first respondent to register the

petitioner’s vehicle as a non-transport vehicle in terms of the dictum

contained in the decision referred to above subject to the rider that

if it is found at any time that the vehicle is used for carriage of

goods, the same can be re-classified. This writ petition is

disposed of as above. No costs.

                                              K. SURENDRA MOHAN
                                                       Judge
jj

WPC 7255/2010    3

                      K.K.DENESAN & V. RAMKUMAR, JJ.

—————————————————-

M.F.A.NO:

—————————————————–

JUDGMENT

Dated: