IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11343 of 2010(P) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ JOY, S/O.MATHEW, KUNNAN HOUSE, PUTHUKKAD P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE JOINT R.T.O., IRINJALAKUDA. 2. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S. MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 11343 OF 2010 P ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the first respondent declining to accord sanction to alter the goods vehicle KL-14E-3062, a Maruthi Omni vehicle as a contract carriage. The petitioner wants to use the said vehicle as a passenger vehicle. According to the petitioner, in order to earn an additional income the petitioner had purchased a 2004 model Maruthi Omni (cargo) vehicle with registration No: KL-14E- 3062. Thereafter he made an application to the first respondent for reclassifying the category of the vehicle as a passenger vehicle with a seating capacity of six. It is the case of the petitioner that Maruti Omini vehicles are manufactured for common use as a passenger vehicle, delivery van, ambulance etc. The petitioner further contends that conversion of the goods vehicle into a passenger vehicle does not alter the basic feature of the vehicle and, therefore, the alteration proposed is permissible under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'). However, as per Ext.P7 proceedings the request of the petitioner has been WPC 11343/2010 2 rejected holding that the variation that is sought for is not permissible under Section 52(1) of the Act. 2. According to the petitioner Ext.P7 has been issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The allegation is seriously disputed by the learned senior Govt. Pleader who has drawn my attention to Ext.R1(a), true copies of the relevant pages of the office file of the first respondent which contains the proceedings of the hearing that was afforded to the petitioner. Specific reference is made to the second page of Ext.R1(a) where the name of the petitioner has been inscribed in Malayalam with an initialing against it. The counsel for the petitioner meets the above contention by pointing out that the signature of the petitioner in Ext.P4 is at considerable variance with the initialling seen in Ext.R1 (a). However, I notice that the signature of the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this petition by the petitioner is also totally different. Be that as it may, since the first respondent has offered to reconsider the matter in Ext.P7 itself, I feel that the first respondent can be directed to reconsider the matter and the petitioner can be given an opportunity to produce additional documents in support of the case and to present his case in person. WPC 11343/2010 3 3. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to reconsider the request of the petitioner in accordance with law notwithstanding Ext.P7, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to produce additional documents in support of his request for sanction to alter the vehicle and to pass final orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 11343/2010 4