IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2009 / 1ST ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 26633 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S. A.M.MOTORS, VARANGODE, DOWNHILL P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 519, REPRESENTED BY MR.MUHAMMED IQBAL, MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MALAPPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TRANSPORT (C) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. G.P SHRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.26633 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns a motor transport undertaking. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10(a) direction issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent and Ext.P7 notice issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner in compliance with Ext.P10(a). By Ext.P10 (a), the 1st respondent, for the reasons stated therein, directed the 2nd respondent to take steps to cancel the trade certificate issued to the petitioner as per Rule 44 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, and to report compliance. Pursuant thereto, Exts.P3, P5 and P7 notices were issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner directing him to appear for a personal hearing. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no meaning in appearing before the 2nd respondent since, by Ext.P10(a), the 1st respondent has directed the 2nd respondent to take steps to cancel the trade certificate and to report compliance to the 1st respondent. The petitioner's further contention is that before passing Ext.P10(a) the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, Ext.P10(a) itself is violative of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, Exts.P3, P5 and P7 notices issued pursuant to Ext.P10(a) are also liable to be interfered with. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Exts.P3, P5 2 and P7 are only notices issued to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent would consider all contentions of the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P3, P5 and P7. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance now is the submission made by the learned Government Pleader. 4. After hearing both sides, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Government Pleader. In Ext.P10(a) there is a categoric direction by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent to take steps to cancel the trade certificate issued to the petitioner. The Government Pleader has no case that Ext.P10(a) was issued after affording an opportunity of being heard to petitioner. That being so, Ext.P10(a) itself is violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P10(a) and consequently Exts.P3, P5 and P7 are quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It would be open to the petitioner to produce all documents in support of their case including Exts.P9(a) and P9(b) and while passing fresh orders, the 1st respondent shall consider all those documents submitted by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// 3 P.A. to Judge