Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38090/2008 of SHAJI PAUL Vs THE JOINT R.T.A. on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38090 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SHAJI PAUL, H.NO.48/1636, PARAMEL HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-26. BY ADV.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38090 of 2008(H)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------
SHAJI PAUL, H.NO.48/1636, PARAMEL
HOUSE, ELAMAKKARA P.O., KOCHI-26.
BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM.
2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI.
3. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPT.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SREEKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 38090 OF 2008 (H)
====================
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is the registered owner of a light motor vehicle bearingRegn.No.KL-07 BJ 1439. The vehicle is having an open body and thepetitioner wanted to have the body converted into a covered one.Thereupon, petitioner made Ext.P2 application to the 1[st] respondent,seeking his permission and that was rejected by Ext.P3 on the ground that any such modification will offend Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. It is challenging Ext.P3, the writ petition is filed.
2. In my view, in a case like this, Section 52 is not attracted. Thisissue is covered by Ext.P4 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.14540/07.In the light of Ext.P4 judgment, Ext.P3 order is unsustainable andtherefore it is quashed. Accordingly, 1[st] respondent is directed to passorders on Ext.P2 application in the light of Ext.P4 judgment, a copy ofwhich will be produced by the petitioner. This shall be done, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of acopy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE