IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4303 of 2008(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.B.KISHORE, AGED 29, S/O.BAHULEYAN VADAKINEDATH HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., COCHIN-682028. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON SRI.M.JITHESH MENON RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM (OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.) 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, TRANS TOWERS VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.GOVINDAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 4303 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: February 6, 2008 JUDGMENT An Omni van purchased by the petitioner was converted into a generator van. The tax liability of the petitioner was in dispute and that was decided by the 1st respondent in Ext.P5. Ext.P5 itself shows that he had inspected the vehicle and finally he came to the conclusion that the vehicle is presently adapted to carry 11 persons including the driver. On that basis it was classified as a private service vehicle fitted with generator and tax was levied as per item 5 of the schedule to the Act. 2. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal and the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P6 order confirming Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent. In Ext.P6 also it has been found that the vehicle was adapted to carry 11 persons including driver. Still aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision before the 3rd respondent. That also was rejected by Ext.P10. In Ext.P10, the 3rd respondent, after examining the matter in detail, found no reason to interfere WP(C) 4303/2008 Page numbers with the concurrent orders of respondents 1 and 2. It is challenging Exts.P5, P6 and P10 levying tax as private service vehicle on the generator van, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Exts. P5, P6 and P10 shows that the vehicle has been inspected by the authorities and on such inspection they have come to the conclusion that the vehicle is adapted to carry 11 passengers including driver. There is nothing on record to indicate that this concurrent factual finding of the authorities is vitiated by any perversity. Petitioner relies on Ext.P9 notification which provides that generator van should be classified as a non-transport vehicle. In my view, Ext.P9 cannot improve the case of the petitioner in any manner since this case has been decided by the seating capacity of the vehicle also. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-