IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 25711 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BENNY PATHROSE,MADAPPILLIL H0USE, MALAYIDOMTHURUTHU.P.O,KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.M.K.ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,TRIVANDRUM-695 001 2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM-682030 3. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR,ERNAKULAM DIST.-683542 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 25711 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: True copy of the sale certificate issued by the dealer of the vehicle dated 3/8/10. P2: True copy of the receipt issued by the insurance company dated 3/8/10. P3: True copy of the application submitted by the petitioner dated 5/8/10. P4: True copy of the judgment in W.P.(C).NO.24546/08. P5: True copy of the order issued by the third respondent on 6.8.10. P6: True copy of the judgment in W.P.(C).NO.24724/09 dated 8.10.09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: nil C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.25711 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner has purchased a goods vehicle Mahindra Bolero Camper DXB52 2WD 3014 WB. He has submitted Ext.P3 application before the third respondent for alteration of the said vehicle. The request of the petitioner is for conversion of the same as a passenger vehicle. The said application was considered and Ext.P5 order was passed thereon, whereby the request of the petitioner for conversion of the same as a passenger vehicle was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that it is unsustainable in the light of Exts.P4 and P6 judgments. He has submitted Ext.P4 judgment along with Ext.P3 application. The same was not properly considered. That apart, Ext.P6 judgment was passed in an identical matter. It is in the light of Exts.P4 and P6 judgments that the petitioner contends that Ext.P5 order requires re-consideration. Obviously, in Ext.P5, there is nothing which would suggest that the matter was considered in the light of Ext.P4. In the circumstances, to enable the third respondent to consider Ext.P3 in the light of Exts.P4 and P6 judgments, W.P.(C) NO.25711/2010 2 Ext.P5 is set aside. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the third respondent to consider Ext.P3 afresh in the light of Exts.P4 and P6 judgments with notice to the petitioner. This Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.25711/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010