IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 13695 of 2010(J) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- BIJU, S/O. ANTHONY, 7/511 KANNAMPILLY HOUSE, ANNAMANADA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE JOINT R.T.O., IRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RANI DIOTHIMA.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.13695/2010-J: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF VEHICLE NO.KL-8Q-5059. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 06/04/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE NO. KL-8-AJ-6600. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 13695 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the respondent allegedly without giving an opportunity of hearing . It was in the said circumstance that the matter was admitted on 23.04.2010 mainly taking note of the grievance of the petitioner as to the denial of opportunity of hearing. 2. Pursuant to the service of notice, the respondent has appeared and filed a counter affidavit stating that the averments raised by the petitioner are quite wrong and unfounded and that the petitioner was in fact called for a personal hearing on 26.03.2010. The contentions raised by the petitioner, during the course of hearing were also considered and it was accordingly that Ext. P2 order was passed. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner is still having an effective alternate remedy, by approaching the Deputy Transport W.P.(C) No. 13695 OF 2010 2 Commissioner and it is without exhausting the said remedy, that the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court seeking to re-classify the vehicle mentioned in Ext. P1 as a private service vehicle for personal use. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. After considering the facts and figures, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case and relegates the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, if at all aggrieved in any manner and if so advised. Interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk