IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JANUARY 2009 / 6TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 6190 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.A. SHANAVAZ, S/O. K.K. ALI, AGED 36 YEARS, PALLATH HOUSE, FERRY ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY-683 104. 2. JHNY P.J, S/O. P.L. JOHN, PALAKKAPPILLY HOUSE, GREEN LAD, PERUMANOOR, COCHIN-15. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESETED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHRITY, VATAKARA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, VATAKARA BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON 26/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.6190 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P1, a circular issued by the 2nd respondent. 2. By this circular it is ordered that all documents from the Regional Transport Offices and other offices of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Department will be sent only by post and that personal dealings will not be entertained. The contention raised is that the said circular is against the provisions contained in Rule124 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. The Rules provides that communications may be sent by any one of the three methods specified therein. Even according to the counsel for the petitioner, the method specified in Ext.P1 is one of the 3 methods specified in the Rule. However he contends that when the Rule provides for three methods, the Government cannot issue a circular WP(c).No.6190/09 /2/ confining to one of the methods. I am not in a position to accept this contention, for the reason that a reading of the Rule 124 of the Rules shows that the authorities can sent the documents by any one of the three methods specified in the Rule. The effect of Ext.P1 circular is that the authorities have chosen one of the methods specified in Rule 124. This in my view is perfectly permissible and if that be so, the circular cannot be sated to be issued in excess of the powers conferred under Rule 124 of the Rules. This view has already taken by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment dismissing the WP(c).No.876/09. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6190/09 /2/