IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2009 / 6TH SRAVANA 1931 W.A.No. 1539 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.5541/2009 Dated 17/03/2009 APPELLANT: ( PETITIONER IN THE WPC). N.M.KURIAN, S/O.N.K.VARGHESE, NADUVILA MULLATH HOUSE, ASHOKA ROAD, KALOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1539 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. He is the owner of a tanker lorry bearing Registration No.KL-4/L 8348. He submitted an application for alteration of the vehicle under Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said application was rejected by Ext.P4 by the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, noticing that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This Writ Appeal is filed, challenging the said judgment. 2. When a Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy, normally no appeal will be entertained by the Division Bench against such a judgment. It is an order passed in the W.A. NO. 1539/2009 2 discretion of the learned Single Judge. Existence of an alternative remedy is a valid ground for declining jurisdiction. Unless the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge is shown to be perverse, the appellate court cannot interfere with that decision. Having regard to the facts of the case, we think that the discretion has been rightly exercised by the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the time limit for filing an appeal is already over and, therefore, he is left with no remedy. We feel that the appellant should blame himself for his plight. But, it is clarified that this judgment will not affect the rights, if any, of the appellant to file a fresh application for modification of his vehicle. Subject to the above observation, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1539/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1539/2009 JUDGMENT 28th July, 2009 W.A. NO. 1539/2009 4