IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 23752 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AJITHA P.A., PROPRIETOR,M/S.AISWARYA GAS SERVICES, 16/44,CHULLIKKAL,KARUVELIPPADI,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY,TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,ERNAKULAM 4. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MATTANCHERY. 5. POPULAR MEGA MOTORS (INDIA) LIMITED, VEE VEE TOWERS,N.H.BYE PASS NORTH END, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI-24. 6. TATA MOTORS LIMITED, TUTUS TOWERS,3RD FLOOR,N.H.BYE PASS ROAD, PADIVATTOM,KOCHI-682024. SR. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH FOR R5 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R5 SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R6 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 23752/09. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION. P2. COPY OF THE WEIGHING SLIP DTD.17.8.09. P3. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.10.8.09. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.3.8.09 BY TATA MOTORS LTD. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R4A. COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION ORDER DTD.20.9.04. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 23752 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a vehicle for transport of LPG gas cylinders on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation. When the same was presented for registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, the 3rd respondent refused to register the same on the ground that the vehicle is not fitted with ABS brake system, which is mandatory as per the rules. Although in the writ petition the petitioner had taken the contention that the vehicle is not liable to be fitted with ABS brake system, he would now submit that the 3rd respondent may be directed to register the vehicle subject to the petitioner fitting the vehicle with ABS brake system within a fixed time. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3. I find that a learned Single Judge of this Court has already disposed of in W.P.(C).No.12895/2009 directing the RTO concerned to register a similar vehicle, subject to fitting the vehicle with ABS brake system within a period of one month. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall register the vehicle of the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this 2 judgment subject to the petitioner producing the vehicle for inspection after fitting the same with ABS brake system within one month thereafter. The 3rd respondent would also be free to endorse in the RC book that the registration is provisional and subject to production of the vehicle after being fitted with the ABS brake system within one month. If the petitioner fails to produce the vehicle before the 3rd respondent after fitting the vehicle with ABS brake system within the stipulated time, it would be open to the 3rd respondent to move this Court for contempt of court. In such an event, he would also be entitled to cancel the registration granted and to seize the vehicle without further notice. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge