IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34642 of 2010(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- B.K.MOHAMMED, S/O. KUNHAPPA, KANNADIPARA HOUSE, BEKUR P.O., UPPALA, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT (B) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING AUTHORITY), KASARGOD – 671 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 34642 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has purchased a TATA 709/42 bus chassis with Chassis No.MAT 386518 ABC 13149 and Engine No. 497 TC 93 CZY 818330. After body building the petitioner has produced the vehicle for registration. Ext.P4 is the application submitted in Form No.20 before the second respondent. Thereupon, the second respondent in fact, directed the petitioner to produce the vehicle before the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection prior to registration. Accordingly, it was produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector. After such inspection he has submitted Ext.P6 report to the second respondent. It is stated therein that in terms of Rule 269 of Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short 'KMV Rules'), the minimum number of seating capacity of stage carriage having wheel base of 420 centimeters is 33 where as the vehicle produced for inspection was fitted only 31 seats despite having a wheel base of 420 cms. Based on Ext.P6 report, the second respondent returned Ext.P4 WPC.34642/2010 : 2 : application for permanent registration requiring the petitioner to rectify the aforesaid defect. Ext.P7 is the endorsement made in that regard. Subsequent to the same, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P8 application for exemption in terms of Rule 334 of the KMV Rules. According to the petitioner, the maximum permissible and possible width that can be provided for body building on the chassis of the vehicle concerned is 220 centimeters. It is further stated thereunder that the 2 seats were to be removed in the rear row for providing the minimum width of 150 centimeters for the emergency exit in terms of Rule 285 of the KMV Rules. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the minimum number of seats specified under Rule 269 has to be read subject to Rule 285 as amended. In fact, the petitioner has raised all such contention in Ext.P8 application. Ext.P8 application seeking exemption is pending consideration before the first respondent. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P8 application dated 4.11.2010 was received by the first respondent only on WPC.34642/2010 : 3 : 12.11.2010. Immediately thereon 15.11.2010, it was forwarded for getting the report from the Transport Commissioner. It is submitted that as and when such a report is received from the Transport Commissioner, Ext.P8 will be considered in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while considering Ext.P8, the second respondent may be directed to consider whether in terms of Ext.P9 judgment of this Court, the petitioner could be granted a provisional registration. In view of the above contentions and submissions, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder: The first respondent shall consider Ext.P8 application in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the second respondent shall also consider the question whether the petitioner could be granted a provisional registration. While considering the same, the second respondent shall look into Ext.P9 to see whether the petitioner is also similarly situated as that of the petitioner therein. It is made clear that even if such a provisional WPC.34642/2010 : 4 : registration is granted in terms of Ext.P9 judgment, it will be subject to the orders to be passed in Ext.P8. Such a decision on the question of provisional registration shall be taken by the second respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma