IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE26H DAY OF MARCH20145TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8710 of 2014 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- ARAVIND, S/O.K.P.RATNAKARAN, AGED34YEARS GOVARDHAN, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN SMT.MINI.V.A. SRI.JENIN JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANNUR PIN. 670 001.
2. THE SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER THALASSERY.- 670 001 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. REMA BY SRI.NAVEEN.T THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2603- 2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 8710 of 2014 (K) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED DEALER OF TATAMOTORS EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE VEHICLE DATE SHEET DATED152-2014 EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT
IN WPC.NO.26422/2013 DATED3010-2013. //True Copy// P.A. To Judge K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 8710 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 26th March, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT
The petitioner, owner of a Tata Xenon Crew Cab (LMV Goods Carrier Truck), when presenting his vehicle for registration as a private vehicle, the 2nd respondent refused to register the same as a private vehicle on the ground that the classification of the vehicle is 'LMV Goods Carrier Truck' and the same can only be treated as transport vehicle. The petitioner contends that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in Cheriyan v. Transport Commissioner [2009 (2) KLT583.
2. In Cheriyan's case (supra) this Court had declared that with respect to vehicles which are constructed and adapted for carriage of goods and carriage of passengers, the primary WP(C).8710/14 2 aspect to be considered is the use to which it is put. It was also declared that, if the vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle, then the registration ought to be granted in that category and not as a goods carriage, if it is not intended to be used as a goods carriage. It was also clarified that if at all the vehicle was used other than for the purpose for which it was registered, then it was open to the authorities to re-classify the vehicle as a Transport Vehicle. In the present case, the petitioner declares that he intends to use the vehicle in connection with his business. In the above circumstance, the definition of 'goods carriage' and 'transport vehicle' in sub sections 14 and 47 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assumes significance. (14) "Goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any WP(C).8710/14 3 motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods: (47) "Transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an education institution bus or a private service vehicle.
3. Hence though the present vehicle is not a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use, solely for the carriage of goods, the petitioner intends to use it for carriage of goods also. The petitioner declares himself to be a hotelier and contends that he intends to use the vehicle for his business. Necessarily the vehicle would be used to carry goods. There is nothing on record to show that he sought for registration as a non-transport vehicle and the same was declined by the registering authority. Ext.P2 shows that the "class of vehicle" is indicated as "Light Commercial vehicle". On the facts disclosed from the averments in the writ petition, the dominant use to which the vehicle WP(C).8710/14 4 would be put is for carriage of goods. Cheriyan's case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. The writ petition, hence is dismissed. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs