IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 25882 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. JACOB JOSEPH, S/O.LATE P.C. JOSEPH, POOVATHARAKAL HOUSE, PARATHODE P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJAPPAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, 295, PANAYCKAL HOUSE, PARATHODE P.O. KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN, SMT.SREEJA SOHAN K., SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL, SRI.ARUN BECHU N.N., SRI.DILIP K., SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN: 686 507. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER FOR STATE OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM, PIN: 695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.JOSEPH GEORGE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 25882 of 2011(I) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT. 29.3.1999. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DT. 26.7.2011. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, DT. 5-9-2011. EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WPC. 19329/2009, DT: 15-7-2009. EXT.P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 48 OF 2011, DT: 4-1-2011. EXT.P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA, DT. 5-12.2001. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).25882/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 18th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The request of the petitioner for registering Mahindra Double Cab 4 WD vehicle with the seating capacity of six persons as a non transport vehicle was rejected as per Ext.P3 order. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition is filed. 2. This issue has already been considered by this Court in Alex Thomas v. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 603) and Cherian v. Transport Commissioner (2009 (2) KLT 583) where it has been held that the user of the vehicle can be decided whether it is used as a transport vehicle or a non transport vehicle. 3. Insofar as this case is concerned, since the user of the vehicle is as a non transport vehicle, the request of the petitioner could not have been rejected as has been done in Ext.P3. 4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P3 and directing the respondents to register the vehicle in question as a non transport vehicle. However, it is clarified that in the event W.P.(C).25882/11 2 the vehicle is used for any other purpose, it will be open to the authorities to take appropriate action in the matter. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge