IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 12419 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- ANTONY JAISON, S/O.PAPPU JOHN, AGED 40 YEARS, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELOOR SOUTH, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- REGISTERING AUTHORITY, JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM. BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 12419 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P7 and P8 proceedings of the respondent, rejecting an application filed by him seeking permission for conversion of his vehicle as a private service vehicle. The petitioner is the owner of a 2001 model tempo traveller vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7/AD 9202. The vehicle was originally registered as a private service vehicle by the original owner with a seating capacity of 14 + 1 and tax was being paid at the rates applicable to a private service vehicle. 2. The petitioner wants to convert the vehicle into a contract carriage and to reduce its seating capacity. Therefore, he submitted a request, which is Ext.P3. As per judgment dated 24.7.2009 in WP(C) 20873 of 2009, this court directed the respondent to consider Ext.P3 request made by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 3. While so, on 29.7.2009, Ext.P7 order was passed by the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner. Apparently, Ext.P7 Wpc 12419 of 2010 2 has been passed without noticing the direction of this court in Ext.P6 judgment. Therefore, on coming to know of the judgment of this court, the respondent has passed Ext.P8 order dated 1.10.2009 referring to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment and holding that the petitioner's request was rejected for the grounds already stated in Ext.P7. The orders of the respondent, Exts.P7 and P8 are under challenge in this writ petition. 4. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P7 order has been passed five days after Ext.P6 judgment. Thereafter, Ext.P8 has been issued reiterating the decision taken by the respondent in Ext.P7 and rejecting the petitioner's request. According to the petitioner, Exts.P7 and P8 orders show that the subsequent order dated 1.10.2009 was only a farce. At any rate, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner should have been heard before his application was rejected. The learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.K.C.Santhosh Kumar submits that the petitioner has no valid grounds to attack the decisions in Exts.P7 and P8 for the reason that the ground on which his request has been rejected is a valid and tenable one. It has been held by the Apex Court in a number of decisions that revenue loss is a valid Wpc 12419 of 2010 3 ground for rejection of such a request. Therefore, it is submitted that granting of an opportunity of hearing would not improve matters in any manner. 5. It is not disputed that before issuing Ext.P8, the petitioner was not heard. The request of the petitioner had been rejected on 29.7.2009 itself, as per Ext.P7. Therefore, the respondent could not have had the benefit of any additional material for consideration, when he issued Ext.P8. Since the request of the petitioner has been rejected, he should have been heard before such rejection. As the petitioner has not been heard, Exts.P7 and P8 are unsustainable. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders, Exts.P7 and P8 are set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also and to take a final decision in the matter, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk