IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1599 of 2008(M) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- KANCHANA V.KARTHA, W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR KARTHA, 50/2D NEW NO.33/44, "KANCHANAM", JAWAN CROSS ROAD, EDAPPALLY NORTH, PONEKKARA, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-682 026. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD. 2. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM AT KAKKANAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1599/2008 M APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD. 28/11/2007 ISSUED IN FORM 21 FROM M/S.TVS LIMITED., KALOOR FOR SALE OF A-3516-130 “WHEEL BASE TRACTOR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BYTHE 1ST RESPONDENT'S OFFICE RELATING TO VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXT.P1. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M/S. RR ASSOCIATES PALAKKAD UNDER FORM 22(A) PART II. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD. 18/12/2007 ISSUED UNDER FORM 21 BY M/S. INDIA TRAILERS NAMAKKAL. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE ROAD WORTHINESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED UNDER RULE 47 (G) & RULE 127 OF THE CMV RULES BY M/S.INDIA TRAILERS ON 18/12/2007. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.112/55738/05 DTD. 08/09/2005. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DTD. 19/12/2007. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULATION OF A NEW VEHICLE FILED IN FORM 20 ON 02/11/2008 BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C) 1599 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated: January 23, 2008 JUDGMENT The complaint of the petitioner is that despite having made Ext.P8 application for registration of a trailer, the registration has not been granted. It is contended that the refusal to grant registration is in spite of a direction issued by the 1st respondent to register the vehicle by an endorsement on the application. 2. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that in terms of Rule 305 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, when a trailer is brought from outside the State, it should have the approval of the STAT. It is also contended that in terms of sub-rule (9) in respect of the tractor in question which is manufactured in the State of Tamil Nadu, at least an approval by the authority of that State is required. It is stated that as against this requirement, all that the petitioner has produced is Ext.P6 which does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 305. 3. It may be true that Ext.P6 does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 305 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. Even if it is so, the respondent has a duty to communicate the inadequacy to the petitioner. This has not been done in this case. WP(C) 1599/08 Page numbers 4. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 2nd respondent shall take up Ext.P8 application made by the petitioner, consider the same and pass orders thereon. If there is any inadequacy with Ext.P6 which has been produced along with Ext.P8, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE mt/-