IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1514 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23805/2011 Dated 05/09/2011 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------- M/S.AUTOMOTIVE MARKETING PVT. LTD., AUTHORISED DEALERS OF EICHER VEHICLES 39.1-405-KANNUR ROAD, PAVANGAD PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE-21, REP. BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER, T.R.ANILKUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE. MALAPPURAM-676 505. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE-1, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003. BY G.P. SRI.S.JAMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX ANNEXURE-1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC NO.23078/2011 DT.24.8.2011. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. C.J. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1514 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. The question raised in this case is whether the extension made to the appellant's vehicle affects the stability or safety for use as a school bus. Appellant is dealer of a reputed manufacturer of “Eicher” brand vehicles used by large number of educational institutions for transporting school children. Appellant's specific case is that extension to the chasis by 58 cms. is done by the manufacturer itself and the type of the vehicle has approval from Automobile Research Association of India (ARAI). We feel this is a technical matter which requires to be considered by the Transport Commissioner-second respondent, if required after getting clarification from the manufacturer. If the vehicle is safe, then extension of body by itself should not disentitle the appellant for registration. The second respondent is, therefore, directed to consider the matter and issue clarification to third respondent for him to dispose of the appeal. The 2 appellant will produce copy of this judgment along with manufacturer's leaflets and if necessary, along with report from the manufacturer and convince the Transport Commissioner before issuing instruction to the third respondent. Both respondents 2 and 3 are directed to pass final orders within three weeks from today. Since the vehicle remains idle and the school is in urgent need of the vehicle, the Transport Commissioner is directed to clarify the matter within ten days from today. The Transport Commissioner also should take a realistic view in the matter because 33 seat vehicle may be the minimum required for a school. The appellant will produce copy of this judgment before the Transport Commissioner for compliance. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Acting Chief Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms