IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 32611 of 2008(G) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TOMMY MATHEW, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.CHOICE MOTORS, IRINJALAKUDA, RESIDING AT: 'PERINGAMALAYIL'HOUSE, THRISSUR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADVS. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, MR.DEEPU LAL MOHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CZ-1,THRISSUR. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.32611/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TRADE CERTIFICATE NO. R5/31362/R DTD. 22/10/2002 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TRADE CERTIFICATE NO. R2/44563/04/R DTD. 27/09/2004 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. R4/2124/2007 DTD. 20/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DTD. 21/12/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/1184/2007/CZ-1 DTD. 04/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 16/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C/1184/2007/CZI DTD. 19/03/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 16/04/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE EXT.P.1. CERTIFICATE CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 25/04/2008 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE EXT.P.2. CERTIFICATE CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT DTD. 25/04/2008 OF THE R.2. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE TRADE CERTIFICATE DTD. 02/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO SRI. VINCENT C.M. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE TRADE CERTIFICATE DTD. 03/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2. TO M/S. KUNISSERI MOTORS. EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 03/05/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/09/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C). NO. 26215/2008. EXT.P.15: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.2. EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FEES FOR RENEWAL OF EXTS. P9 AND P.10 TRADE CERTIFICATES. W.P.(C). NO.32611/2008-G: EXT.P.16: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C/1184/07/CZ1 DTD. 22/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.17: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/09/2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.18: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C/1184/2007/CZ1 DTD. 03/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.19: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C/1184/2007/CZ1 DTD. 03/10/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.1. TO THE R.2. EXT.P.20: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 07/10/2008 (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. EXT.P.21: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. RTO/TCR/CM/07-08 DTD. 25/04/2007 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT (SALES & SERVICE) OF TVS MOTOR COMPANY LIMITED TO THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY M/S. TVS SUZUKI LIMITED, TAMILNADU. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 32611 of 2008 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Exhibits P1 and P2 are the Trade Certificates issued by the second respondent to the petitioner. Exhibit P1 specifies the activity of the petitioner as an Authorised Service Centre, but however, in Exhibit P2, there is no such endorsement. It is stated by the petitioner that these Certificates were renewed from time to time. Finally Exhibit P3 order was passed by the second respondent, rejecting renewal of Trade Certificates sought for by the petitioner vide an application dated 20/09/2007. 2. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Exhibit P4 appeal before the first respondent and the appeal was allowed as per Exhibit P7 order. A reading of Exhibit P4 order shows that the appellate authority has ordered that the Trade Certificate of the petitioner is liable to be renewed for continuation of his trade or business, authorized to him. Thereafter, Exhibits P9 and P10 were issued by the second respondent renewing the Trade Certificates, but however specifying that the Trade Certificates granted are only for the purposes of ‘Authorized Service Centre’. W.P.(C) No. 32611 /2008 2 3. Petitioner was not satisfied with Exhibits P9 and P10, as according to him, the Trade Certificates did not permit the sale of vehicles which he was authorized to. Thereupon, the petitioner sought clarification before the first respondent by filing Exhibit P13 application. There was delay on the part of the first respondent in considering the Exhibit P13 application, and therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P(C).No.26215/2008. The writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P14 judgment directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P13 application. 4. Accordingly, Exhibit P19 order was passed by the first respondent clarifying that the petitioner is authorized to sell and service two wheelers manufactured by TVS Motors and on that basis, the second respondent was directed to issue endorsement in the Trade Certificate of the petitioner consistent with the clarification given. Orders consequent to Exhibit P19 was not passed and in the meanwhile, the Trade Certificates as renewed by Exhibit P9 and P10 expired. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal on 4/09/2008. He is W.P.(C) No. 32611 /2008 3 referring Exhibit P15 to show that even the fee that is payable has been paid. It is stated that orders still have not been passed. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. In my view the endeavor of the second respondent, as reflected in the counter affidavit, is to over-reach Exhibit P7 order as clarified by Exhibit P19, and this attitude is absolutely unwarranted. When a superior authority clarifies his order, the inferior authority who is bound by the said order should faithfully implement the same. If so, the second respondent ought to have issued the Trade Certificate with necessary endorsement as clarified in Exhibit P19, enabling the petitioner to carry on sale of two wheelers also. This has not been done and conduct of the second respondent cannot be approved. 6. Now that on 4/09/2008, the petitioner has applied for renewal of Trade Certificate, it is directed that on the production of copy of this judgment, the second respondent shall pass orders renewing Trade Certificate of the petitioner strictly in compliance to Exhibits P7 and P19 orders passed by the 1st respondent. It is clarified that the endorsement shall include such W.P.(C) No. 32611 /2008 4 authorization as is necessary for the petitioner to carry on sale of two wheelers. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent, who shall pass necessary orders as directed above within four weeks thereafter. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm