Allowed

Sambasivan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2012WP(C)/28471/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam bench, on December 14, 2012, disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of orders rejecting a vehicle alteration request. The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Regional Transport Officer to reconsider the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of Ext.P2 and P3 orders; direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh within one month after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Sambasivan Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/23RD AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 28471 of 2012 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SAMBASIVAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,11/87, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE OLLUKKARA, MANNUTHY,THRISSUR-680655.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

¶12

CENTRAL ZONE-I, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶13

3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 28471 of 2012 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT-P1 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER'S VEHICLE. EXT-P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13/7/2012 OF 3RD RESPONDENT EXT-P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11/10/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT-P4 TRUE COPY OF RC PARTICULARS VEHICEL BEARING NO.KL-10-G-1901 BEFORE AND AFTER ALTERATION.

¶22

EXT-P5 TRUE COPY OF RC PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.KL-05-G-1411 BEFORE AND AFTER ALTERATION.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.28471 Of 2012 ---------------------Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2012.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P2 & P3 orders and for a direction directing the 3^rd respondent to permit alteration of petitioner's Mahindra made LMV for personal use bearing registration number KL-08-M-3153 to towing vehicle.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

¶32

The petitioner is a registered owner of a Mahindra made Light Motor Vehicle. Petitioner applied for alteration of the vehicle to a towing vehicle. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the 3^rd respondent rejecting the application. The petitioner preferred appeal and the 2^nd respondent confirmed Ext.P2 order in appeal. Ext.P3 is the order passed in the appeal. It is submitted that the vehicle was purchased to make use of the same by erecting a crane on its open body to carry damaged cars to the showroom. After erecting crane for the said purpose, the petitioner applied for alteration of the same to a towing vehicle. The authorities

¶33

::2::

¶34

W.P.(C).No.28471 Of 2012

¶35

found that the petitioner altered the physical features of the vehicle and that the construction work and modification work done amounts to change in the basic features and design of the vehicle structure. According to the petitioner, no material alteration of the structure is made by the petitioner. It is pointed out that a similar issue of alteration was considered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.29946/2006. It is submitted that on the basis of the said decision, the RTO permitted alteration of the vehicle. The petitioner also submits that the RTO in a similar case permitted alteration of Mahindra made LMV meant for personal use to a towing vehicle as evidenced by Exts.P4 & P5. In the light of the contentions raised and on the basis of Exts.P4 & P5 and the judgment in W.P.(C).No.29946/2006, the matter requires reconsideration.

¶36

Accordingly, Exts.P2 & P3 are quashed. There will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the matter afresh in the light of Exts.P4 & P5 and the decision of this Court in W.P.(C). No.29946/2006. The petitioner shall produce the copies of the aforesaid decisions before the 3^rd respondent for perusal and

¶37

::3::

¶38

W.P.(C).No.28471 Of 2012

¶39

reference. The order shall be passed after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of one

¶40

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

¶42

bkn/-

Sambasivan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sambasivan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Padmanabhan.K Vs Sudheer K.P

P.a.Pappachan Vs the District Labour Officer

G.Satheesh Vs the Regional Transport Authority

C.O Davis Vs Secretary

Somarajan T.G. Vs the Assistant Registering Authority

Sunny George Vs Regional Transport Authority