IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18621 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIBICHEN JACOB,S/O.CHACKO,H.NO.6/389, VIRAKODIYIANAL,KARIVEDANKUNDU,VAYATTUPARAMBA POST, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TALIPARAMBA,KANNUR. 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KANNUR. SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.18621 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased a Mahindra Bolero Camper 2WDBS vehicle. Ext.P1 is a copy of the invoice issued by the dealer who sold the vehicle to the petitioner. It was temporarily registered as can be seen from Ext.P2. When the petitioner applied for permanent registration in the prescribed form along with the original of Ext.P3 affidavit wherein he had affirmed and declared that he will use the vehicle only as a private car, the said application was rejected by Ext.P4 order dated 3-6-2010 holding that the vehicle cannot be registered as a Light Motor Vehicle/Motor Car but only as a light goods vehicle. Ext.P4 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. The issue raised by the petitioner is covered in his favour by the decision of this Court in Cherian v. Transport Commissioner, 2009 (2) KLT 583 wherein this Court had directed a similar vehicle should be registered as a light motor vehicle. That decision has been followed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P(C)No.9039 of 2010 wherein also a similar vehicle was directed to be registered as a light motor vehicle. The said decisions have become final. In the light W.P(C).No.18621 of 2010 -:2:- of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court I am of the opinion that Ext.P4 cannot be sustained. In the result I allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P4 order and direct the second respondent to register the vehicle described in Ext.P1 invoice as a light motor vehicle on the petitioner producing the same. The vehicle shall be registered on the day it is produced before the registering authority provided the petitioner pays the requisite fees/taxes. It is clarified that if later, it is found that the vehicle is being used as a goods vehicle within the meaning of the said term under the Motor Vehicles Act, it will be open to the respondents to reclassify the vehicle as a goods vehicle. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.18621 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 16th June, 2010