IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 36747 of 2009(K) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DEVASIA KURIAN, EZHAPARAMPIL, BALAL, PARAPPA P.O., KASARAGOD. BY ADV. MR.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO TRANSPORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KASARAGODE. 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KANHANGAD. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36747 of 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P3 proceedings of the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kanhangad refusing to convert the vehicle as a light motor vehicle for personal use. According to the petitioner, though his vehicle has been issued with a contract carriage permit, due to ill health, he is not able to use the same as a contract carriage. Therefore, the petitioner wants to use the same only for his personal purposes. According to the petitioner, the relevant rule permits conversion of the vehicle to a light motor vehicle intended for personal use. 2. According to the learned Senior Government Pleader, the vehicle was involved in a criminal case and the vehicle was re-registered without disclosing its previous registration. According to the petitioner, he had purchased it from one Vijayan of Adimaly who had registered the vehicle in his name. The Government wpc No.36747/2009 2 Pleader submits that there is a racket with deep roots across the State, involved in the registration and re- registration of vehicles. Therefore, if the conversion of the vehicle is permitted, the authorities would lose control over the same and it is apprehend that the vehicle itself would disappear. 3. The counsel for the petitioner points out that the vehicle has been put in custody of the petitioner as per orders passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Hosdurg in Criminal M.C.No.3567/1997 dated 6.1.1998. As per the said order, the petitioner has the responsibility to produce the vehicle on the orders of the Court. 4. Since the petitioner has only been put in interim custody of the vehicle, as per orders of the Magistrate's Court, with liability to produce the same as and when required, I do not think there is any justification for disallowing the conversion that is sought for. It cannot be disputed that the conversion that the petitioner has sought for is permissible in accordance with the rules. I also notice from Ext.P2 judgment of this Court that the wpc No.36747/2009 3 petitioner had earlier been permitted to pay the tax and to renew the permit without insisting on production of the original Registration Certificate, which itself is in the custody of the Court. In the above circumstances, the refusal of the third respondent to allow the conversion that was sought for is without any justification. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Ext.P10 is set aside. The third respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above and to pass fresh orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/