IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 6481 of 2009(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- IQUBAL , PARTNER, M/S. UDAYA SOUND, CHITOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DEPUTY TRRANSPORT COMMISSIONER ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.6481 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th July,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the owner of a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL2/A 21. Since the vehicle is not fit for operating as a stage carriage , he wanted to fit a generator and use it as an Outdoor Cine Unit. Thereafter, an application filed by the petitioner in this regard was rejected as per Exhibit-P1 order without notice to him. But apparently Exhibit-P1 was not communicated to the petitioner directly, though the respondents have a case that it was handed over to the agent of the petitioner. Be that as it may, petitioner filed Exhibit-P2 appeal belatedly. He has given reasons for condonation of delay. Nevertheless, as evidenced by Annexure R1(a), the appeal is also rejected as belated. In the meanwhile, by Exhibit-Annexure R1(b), the RTO affirmed that earlier order was passed rejecting the petitioner's application for alteration of the vehicle as per Exhibit-P1 and that it was served on the petitioner on 22.6.2007. This has been challenged in the writ petition. W.P ( C) No.6481 of 2009 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. There are no materials to show that Exhibit-P1 was actually served on the petitioner. Further it is clear that Exhibit-P1 was passed without hearing the petitioner. Rejection of the appeal was also not on merits. The reasons given by the petitioner for condonation of delay have not been properly adverted to, going by Annexure R3(a). 4. In the result, it is appropriate that the petitioner be heard and a reasoned order be passed by the 1st respondent. 5. Accordingly, Exhibits P1, P3 and Annexure R1(a) are set aside. Petitioner's application for alteration of his vehicle under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act for altering the vehicle into an Out door Cinema Unit shall be considered, in accordance with law and an order shall be passed by the 1st respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.6481 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.6481 of 2009 4