IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34531 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- M/S.CLASSIC MOTORS, 8/4, CHUNGAM, FEROKE, KOZHIKODE-31, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, A.P.UNNIRAJ. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM - 676 505. 2. DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE II, MALAPPURAM 676 505. R1 & R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 34531 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner firm is engaged in the business of sale and service of vehicles mainly in Kozhikode and Malappuram Districts for the past couple of years. According to the petitioner, the firm is selected as an authorised dealer for selling and servicing of M/s.Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. In fact, in Malappuram District, the petitioner firm was granted dealerships at 5 places including the one at Manjeri. In respect of all the said dealerships, Trade Certificates were granted by the RTO, Malappuram. The Trade Certificate in respect of Manjeri got expired on 15.9.2010. Subsequently, a renewal application was submitted before the Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram. However, as per Ext.P8, the R.T.O, Malappuram rejected the request of the petitioner firm for renewal of the Trade Certificate No.KL 10/TC/16/2008. The main reason assigned for declining renewal is that the petitioner firm had not produced the letter of intend from the manufacturer viz., M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt.Ltd. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P8, the petitioner firm has preferred Ext.P9 W.P.(C) NO.34531/2010 2 appeal under Rule 45 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules before the second respondent. The main prayer in this Writ Petition is for a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal expeditiously. Considering the fact that Ext.P9 is a statutory appeal preferred against Ext.P8, the second respondent is bound to consider and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the petitioner to produce any other documents for the purpose of renewal of Trade Certificate No.KL 10/TC/16/2008 before the appellate authority. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.34531/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.34531/2010 4