Sathyabhama vs The Additional Registering … on 23 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18939 of 2008(D)


1. SATHYABHAMA , ODATHINGAL HOUSE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :23/07/2008

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J

     ----------------------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C).NO.18939/2008
     -----------------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 23rd    day of July, 2008


                            JUDGMENT

Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3. By

Ext.P3, the request made by the petitioner for conversion of

an educational institution bus into a generator van has

been rejected on the basis that it offends the provisions

contained in Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The

counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no change

in the basic feature of the vehicle and therefore Section 52

is inapplicable.

2. I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for

the petitioner. I also find force in the submission made by

the counsel for the petitioner that the officer who passed

Ext.P3 order, had rejected a similar application by Ext.P2

order, which was set aside by this court in Ext.P1 judgment.

2

In view of the judgment at least that officer must have been

known the reason assigned by him in Ext.P2 were not

accepted by this court. Despite that, he himself has chosen

to pass Ext.P3 rejecting the petitioner’s request on the very

same reasons. This is clearly an undesirable method of

dealing with petitioner’s application and the officer needs

to correct himself.

3. Be that as it may, since Ext.P3 is unsustainable, for

the reason that the request made by the petitioner does not

offend Section 52 and in the light of Ext.P1 judgment, I

quash the order and direct that the application made by the

petitioner for conversion of his vehicle bearing registration

No.KL-9A 3434, shall be allowed by the respondent on the

production of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE

vi.

3