IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13440 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR DISTRICT PETROLEUM DEALERS ASSOCIATION, IST FLOOR, N.P.COMPLEX, MANNATH LANE, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY ANTOS.C.D. 2. ALL KERALA TANKER LORRY OPERATER'S ASSOCIATION, PARECKATTIL BHAVAN, THURAVOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.J.VARGHESE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, IRUMPANAM P.O., KOCHI. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R3 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R3 SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No.13440 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an association of persons engaged as Petroleum dealers by public sector oil companies. The 3rd respondent is a public sector oil company. The petitioner's grievance arises from Ext.P6 order passed by Government cancelling the earlier exemption granted by the Government under Rule 334 of the Motor Vehicle Rules in the matter of complying with Rule 304 of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules, 1994 in relation to the petrol tank trucks used for the transportation of petroleum products on contract with the HPCL. 2. Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 specifies colour code for goods vehicles carrying hazardous goods. Proviso to the said rule, requires the body if such vehicles to be painted in white colour with brown leaf of 5cm width around the metal and the drivers cabin to be painted in WPC.No.13440 OF 2009 : 2 : orange colour. It seems that the public sector oil marketing companies including the 3rd respondent used to prescribe colour of their own and so was the case with the 3rd respondent. By Ext.P2 the State Government had granted an exemption to the 3rd respondent from complying with Rule 304 of the Motor Vehicles contracted by 3rd respondent, which enables them to maintain a distinct colour code. But now the exemption earlier granted has been cancelled by the Government as per P6 order and the same is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent. 4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the 3rd respondent. 5. By Ext.P6 order the Government has only withdrawn the exemption earlier granted by them. Sufficient reasons have been given by the Government to withdraw the exemption. It cannot be again said that the Government which has the power to grant exemption also has the power to WPC.No.13440 OF 2009 : 3 : withdraw the exemption. There is neither lack of jurisdiction nor exercise of jurisdiction by the Government. 6. But I am in the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the dealers of Petroleum products manufactured by the 3rd respondent should be given three months time to adopt the colour code, otherwise stipulated under Rule 334 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Within the said period of three months from today, the vehicles shall adopt the colour code stipulated under Rule 334 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. Subject to the above the writ petition is disposed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) jma