IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26215 of 2008(U) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TOMY MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. CHOICE MOTORS, IRINJALAKUDA, RESIDING AT: `PERINGAMALAYIL' HOUSE, THRISSUR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, ADV. SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CZ-1, THRISSUR. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26215/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he was issued Exts.P1 and P2 trade certificates under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. In Ext.P1, there was an endorsement that the petitioner's was an Authorised Service Centre. On expiry of the period of the trade certificate, when he applied for renewal that was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the petitioner is a sub-dealer and that there was misuse of the trade certificate. 2. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal by filing Ext.P4 before the first respondent and that was allowed by Ext.P7. In implementation of Ext.P7 he was issued Exts.P9 and P10 trade certificates. However, in both trade certificates, it was specified that the petitioner's WP(c).No.26215/2008 2 establishment was an Authroised Service Centre. 3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid endorsement made is illegal and beyond the scope of Ext.P7 appellate order. He is also referring to Exts.P11 and P12, trade certificates issued by the very same authority without such endorsement. In view of this, petitioner filed Ext.P13 before the first respondent for necessary clarification and in this writ petition what is complained of is mainly regarding the delay in dealing with Ext.P13. 4. As already noticed, the objection of the petitioner is regarding an endorsements made on Exts.P9 and P10 and it is his case that such endorsements are unauthorised in view of the direction of the first respondent in Ext.P7. Such being his grievance, petitioner, in my view, has adopted the right course by approaching the appellate authority itself for necessary clarification and therefore it is for the appellate authority to clarify as to whether the endorsemnt made is WP(c).No.26215/2008 3 permissible in terms of Ext.P7. Therefore the appellate authority should consider Ext.P13 if the same has been received and is pending. Orders on Ext.P13 shall be passed by the first respondent as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 weeks from the date production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.26215/2008 4