IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 19275 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DIVAKARAN KANATH,S/O.UNIKKA, RESIDING AT KANATH HOUSE, DIVAGIRI NAGAR, VELUTHUR P.O. THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SRI.SAJIV.C.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. 3. M/S.RADHA MOTORS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION & PERSONNEL) GURUVAYOOR ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.TOMY THOMAS (KUZHUPPILLY) FOR R3 G.P. SHRI.MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.19275 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner purchased a tempo traveller with a seating capacity of 15 in all from the 3rd respondent who is an authorised dealer for sale of such vehicles. The 3rd respondent got it registered as a contract carriage. The petitioner wanted re-classification of the vehicle as an onmibus for private use, for which he has submitted Ext.P2 application, which was rejected by Ext.P4 order of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. The petitioner submits that Ext.P4 order was passed on the basis of Government circular No.34/98. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of notification S.O.1248(E) dated 5.11.2004 issued by the Central Government, private service vehicle registered in the name of an individual and if declared to be used by him solely for personal use has to registered as a non transport vehicle and therefore, the Government circular cannot govern the issue. The petitioner would submit that while passing Ext.P4 order, the 2nd respondent overlooked the said notification issued by the Government of India. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction quashing of Ext.P4 order and consideration of the petitioner's application in the light of the said notification of the Government of India. 2 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. 3. I am of opinion that in view of the said notification issued by the Government of India, the 2nd respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's application in accordance with the same. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is quashed and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P2 in the light of notification S.O.1248(E) dated 5.11.2004 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge