IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 18939 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SATHYABHAMA , ODATHINGAL HOUSE PALLURUTHY P.O.,KOCHI-6 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.R.SADEESAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MATTACHERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of judgment in WP(c).No.2788/07 of this Hon'ble Court dated 10.4.2007. Ext.P2. True copy of the Order No.43/29100/2006 dated 11.1.2007 quashed by this Hon'ble Court in Ext.P1. Ext.P3. True copy of the order dated 10.6.2008 Vide No.43/19231/2008 issued by the respondent // true copy// P.A to Judge. 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