IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23418 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ FR.VICTOR.T.KALAMPUKATTU, SUPERIOR GENERAL, MALABAR MISSIONARY BROTHERS, MMB GENERELATE, THRISSUR 680005, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.23418/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 and for a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the registration of the vehicle (No.KL/8/J 8423) as Omni bus for private use and not to insist the petitioner to alter the registration of the above vehicle as private service vehicle, to apply for PSV permit, to obtain the certificate of fitness and to remit the differential tax for Rs.18900/-. 2. Petitioner is a religious congregation, which has purchased the aforesaid vehicle and according to the petitioner the second respondent is insisting that the vehicle in question should be registered as a private service vehicle and not as an Omini bus for private use. It is stated that a 2 similar issue was raised before this court in the case reported in Job Koottumkal V. State of Kerala (2003(1) KLT 732) and this court held that there was no justification for insisting on such reclassification and demanding remittance of differential tax. Since the aforesaid judgment covers the issue in favour of the petitioner, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P3 and directing that the respondents shall not insist that the petitioner should alter the registration of the vehicle as a private service vehicle or insist on the petitioner for paying differential tax. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 3