IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15898 of 2010(J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- TESSEY JOSEPH, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MOOKANOOR.P.O., ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. PIN-683 577. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.PRASAD CHANDRAN. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING AUTHORITY), SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, ALUVA. 2. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ---------------------- W.P.(C) No.15898 OF 2010 --------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner purchased a Mahindra Bolero Camper DX 2 WD Gold vehicle from its authorised dealer. He purchased the vehicle for his own personal purposes. The vehicle was produced before the 1st respondent for registration. However, the 1st respondent refused to register the vehicle as a non-transport vehicle. He also insisted on the petitioner to paint the vehicle with yellow colour and to be registered as a transport vehicle. The petitioner challenges the above action of the 1st respondent. 2. According to the petitioner, the issue in this case is squarely covered by the dictum laid down by the decision reported in Cherian v. Transport Commissioner [2009(2) KLT 583]. The learned Government Pleader fairly concedes that the issue is covered by the above decision. W.P.(C) No.15898/2010 2 3. In the decision referred to above also the vehicle involved was a Mahindra Bolero Camper 4WD vehicle. After considering the relevant provisions, this Court has held that the vehicle need be registered only as a non-transport vehicle. It has been further clarified that it is upto the authorities to re-classify the vehicle as a transport vehicle, if it is brought to the notice of the authority that the vehicle is used for carriage of goods. 4. In view of the above dictum, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the 1st respondent to register the petitioner's vehicle as a non-transport vehicle, in terms of the dictum contained in the decision referred to above, subject to the rider that if it is found at any time that the vehicle is used for carriage of goods, the same can be re-classified. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) ps