Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE26H DAY OF MARCH20145TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 8659 of 2014 () -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- SAJI M.M., AGED46YEARS, S/O.MURALI, MANAKAT HOUSE, ALANAD KARA, PALA, ALANAD P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT686651. BY ADVS.SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.J.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575.
2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FOR STATE OF KERALA TRIVANDRUM695001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.REMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2603-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BP WP(C).No. 8659 of 2014 () -------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- P1: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE OF MAHINDRA GENIO DCVX2WD VEHICLE DATED252/2014. P2: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED252/2014. P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION WHICH IS REFUSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED13/14. P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER
IN WPC281482011 DATED2510/2011 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ----------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE BP K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No. 8659 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated 26th March, 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT
The petitioner, owner of a Mahindra Genio DCVX2WD, when presenting his vehicle for registration as a non-transport private vehicle, the 1st respondent refused to register the same as a non transport private vehicle and demanded the petitioner to paint the vehicle in accordance with law, to register it as a non 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).8659/14 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 for his personal needs as also for his agricultural operations. The petitioner admittedly is an agriculturist and has purchased the vehicle to carry on his professional articles. 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 WP(C).8659/14 3 significance. (14) "Goods carriage" means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any 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 specific averment is that he intends to carry his agricultural articles. 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.P3 application shows that the "type of vehicle" is indicated by the petitioner himself WP(C).8659/14 4 as "LMV goods". It is very clear that after seeking registration of the vehicle as a goods vehicle, the petitioner on coming to know of the orders passed by this Court, has approached this Court with the claim of registration as a non- transport vehicle. On the facts disclosed from the averments in the writ petition Cheriyan's case (supra) is not applicable in the instant case. The writ petition, hence is dismissed. Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, Judge Mrcs