Quashed

Somarajan T.G. v. the Assistant Registering Authority

Kerala HC14 Dec 2012WP(C)/30002/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash rejection orders regarding the registration of their vehicle due to extended rear body construction. The court directed the authorities to re-consider the application based on the principles laid down in Jayachandran's Case, allowing modification at variance with the prototype specification for contract carriage.

What did the court decide?

Orders Exts.P5 and P7 were quashed. Petitioner was directed to re-consider the registration application and pass appropriate orders within two weeks based on Jayachandran's Case.

Somarajan T.G. Vs the Assistant Registering Authority — Service and Employment | 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. 30002 of 2012 (A)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

SOMARAJAN T.G., THADATHIL LHOUSE, ANTHINADU P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

THE ASSISTANT REGISTERING AUTHORITY. (JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER), PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 001. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶10

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI G.GOPAKUMAR

¶11

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

¶12

W.P.(C).NO.30002/2012

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONERS' EXTS:

¶15

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICTE DATED 9/2/2012.

¶16

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.KANAPPA AUTOMOBILES. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ARAI SPECIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MANUFACTURER.

¶17

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM MC PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION.

¶18

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 14/5/2012 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 6/4/2011 ISSUED BY THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER.

¶20

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2012 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL.

¶22

TRUE COPY

¶23

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶24

HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.

¶25

W.P.(C).NO.30002 OF 2012

¶26

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

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

¶29

Writ Petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P7

¶30

and for a direction directing the lst respondent to re-consider Ext.P5

¶31

order and to issue fresh orders in the matter, in view the dictum laid down in Jayachandran's Case and issue necessary order to register the petitioner's vehicle bearing Engine No.E483CD BG 540664 and Chasis No.MC217LRTOBG230456 as contract carriage without any delay.

¶32

The application for registration of the vehicle submitted

¶33

by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the rear portion of the body of the vehicle is extended 60cms. from the rear end of the chasis frame and the rear most row of the seats are mounted above this portion which will affect the stability, durability and the strength of the body of the vehicle. Ext.P5 order was passed by the lst

¶34

-2-

¶35

W.P.(C).No.30002/2012

¶36

respondent and the Government passed Ext.P7 order in the application filed under Rule 334 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is submitted by the petitioner that due to denial of registration, the petitioner vehicle is lying idle causing huge loss to him. It is pointed out that the issue regarding the construction of body in variance to the approved specification of ARAI was considered by this Court in Jayachandran v. Regional Transport Officer and others (2012 (4) KLT 729) holding that such construction is permissible. It is submitted that this Court held in the said decision that the body should be constructed strictly as per the approved specification of ARAI and that while building body on chasis of a vehicle, with an approved Prototype, alteration is permissible at variance with manufacturer's specification contained in the prototype test certification. This Court directed the Registering Authority to consider the registration of the vehicle on the principles enumerated in the decision and allow the petitioners to ply their vehicles on the strength of the provisional registration

¶37

-3-

¶38

W.P.(C).No.30002/2012

¶39

till their claim for regular registration is considered. In the light of

¶40

the said decision the application for registration shall be reconsidered afresh.

¶41

In the result, Exts.P5 and P7 orders are quashed. There will be a direction to the lst respondent to re-consider the application for registration afresh and pass appropriate orders, in the light of the decision in Jayachandran v. Regional Transport Officer and others (2012 (4) KLT 729), within a period of two weeks.

¶42

HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE.

¶43

kcv.

Somarajan T.G. v. the Assistant Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somarajan T.G. v. the Assistant Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Sunny George Vs Regional Transport Authority

Sreekumar Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Kollam