IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26707 of 2009(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.G.PAUL, MANAGING PARTNER, V.C.POLYMERS, CHANDRAPURAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO TRANSPORT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 3. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 26707 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 10th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a Mahindra Bolero Camper vehicle for his personal use as a non-transport vehicle. He filed Ext. P2 application along with Ext. P3 undertaking to the effect that he intends to use the vehicle only for his personal use as a light motor vehicle-motor car (non-transport vehicle). The petitioner's grievance is that he 2nd respondent is reluctant to register the vehicle as a non- transport vehicle and is insisting on registering the vehicle in terms of Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. According to the petitioner, the issue involved in this writ petition is covered by the decisions of this Court in Alex Thomas v. State of Kerala, 2008(4) KLT 603 and Cherian v. Transport Commissioner, 2009(2) KLT 583, wherein this Court has held that when the vehicle is manufactured for use either as transport vehicle or as non-transport vehicle, the use of the vehicle has to be considered for registering the vehicle. Since the petitioner has clearly stated that he intends to use the vehicle for his personal use as a motor car, his request for registration of the vehicle as a non-transport vehicle cannot be rejected by the 2nd respondent, is the contention raised by the petitioner. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader. He would submit that there is a practical difficulty for the 2nd respondent insofar as it would be difficult to check the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage vehicle also, since every time such use as goods carriage is detected, the owner would claim that he is transporting the goods for personal use. He also points out that the petitioner has purchased the vehicle as a goods vehicle. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Insofar as the issue is covered by the decisions referred to W.P.C. No. 26707/09 -: 2 :- above, the 2nd respondent cannot now refuse to register the vehicle of the petitioner as a non-transport vehicle. But, even if the petitioner is using the vehicle for his own use, the use of the vehicle as goods carriage cannot be permitted. The 2nd respondent is free to ensure the same. Accordingly, with the above rider, the 2nd respondent is directed to register the petitioner's vehicle as a non-transport vehicle as requested for by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.