IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 2741 of 2011(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ JOSHY.A.CHEMPARATHY, S/O.AUGUSTINE, CHEMPARATHICKAL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.19/197,MUTHALAKODAM, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685 584. 2. THE JOINT TRANSPORT OFFICER, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685 584. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.2741 of 2011-P. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th February, 2011. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 order of the first respondent rejecting the request made by the petitioner for alteration of the class of his vehicle bearing registration No.KL-7BE-1200, from contract carriage to private service vehicle for personal use. According to the petitioner, he purchased the vehicle, which is a 2006 model Eicher LMV having seating capacity of 19 in all, with an intention to use it as an Omni Bus for private use, after effecting the required alterations. The application made in this regard before the first respondent was rejected by Ext.P3 stating various reasons. 2. According to the petitioner, the reason stated in Ext.P3 to the effect that, there is no necessity to alter the class of the vehicle as private service vehicle for personal use, because the petitioner has got only a family consisting WP(C).No.2741 of 2011-P. -: 2 :- of six members is absolutely baseless. The authority is not entitled to impose any restriction on the use of any vehicle depending on the number of family members, is the contention. Further, there is no basis to deny classification as private service vehicle for personal use merely because the vehicle has a seating capacity of 19 in all. It is the personal need of the petitioner to be considered and the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle, is the person to decide for what purpose the vehicle is to be used. 3. Further contention of the petitioner is that, the reason stated that the alteration will cause huge revenue loss to the public exchequer of the State, is not tenable. In this regard the petitioner relies a Division Bench decision of this Court (Ext.P4) in WA.No.27 of 2010 dated 11.1.2011. In the said decision, this Court held that, the question whether the vehicle is a contract carriage or a private service vehicle is to be decided by the owner. 4. Yet another contention raised by the petitioner that the impugned order, Ext.P3, was issued without WP(C).No.2741 of 2011-P. -: 3 :- affording any opportunity of being heard and the petitioner was prevented from placing materials before the authorities in favour of the alteration. 5. Under the above circumstances I am of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent is bound to consider all the contentions raised herein, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. 6. Therefore, Ext.P3 is quashed. The first respondent is directed to pass fresh orders based on Ext.P1, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as early as possible, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, (Judge) Kvs/-