IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34859 of 2010(F) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VINOY MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, ARAKKAL HOUSE, ALAKODE VIA, KOTTAYAD P.O., KANNUR-670 571. BY ADVS. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN, SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THALIPARAMBA CUM THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSFORT OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 002. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, NORTH ZONE, KOZHIKODE-673 020. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.34859 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 1st December, 2010 JUDGMENT In the matter of getting a light motor vehicle registered as motor car the petitioner has submitted an application. Initially a temporary registration was given. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the application for permanent registration has been returned subsequently. Feeling aggrieved by the action in returning the application for permanent registration in fact, against Ext.P5 order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal. A perusal of Ext.P5 would reveal that the request of the petitioner for registration of the concerned vehicle as a motor car was virtually rejected by the registering authority. It was held in Ext.P5 that going by the report of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector the vehicle is having a seating capacity of six in all in the driver's cabin and behind that a space is provided to carry goods. Therefore, going by the report it could not be registered as a light motor vehicle motor car and it can be registered only as a goods carriage, it is stated therein. It was in the said circumstances that the application was returned, virtually rejected, with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh application for registering the vehicle as LGC. Ext.P6 appeal has been preferred against Ext.P5 order. Admittedly, the said appeal is pending WP(C).No.34859/2010 2 before the second respondent. When an appeal is preferred against an order passed by the registering authority, the appellate authority is duty bound to consider the same and pass orders thereon on merits. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to be merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 appeal preferred against Ext.P5, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS