Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHIBU versus THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHIBU v. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY - WP(C) No. 8531 of 2007(N) [2007] RD-KL 7077 (3 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8531 of 2007(N)

1. SHIBU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

Dated :03/04/2007

O R D E R

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

W.P. (C) No.8531 of 2007

Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-9/N 561. It is a 1994 model vehicle. He purchased it on 2.1.2007. He wanted to convert the vehicle into a generator van for which he submitted an application before the respondent. The said application was rejected by Ext.P2. The reason given in Ext.P2 is as follows:

"Section 52 of M.V. Act prohibits alteration of vehicle as regards the changes in the structure of a vehicle resulting in change in its basic feature, originally specified by the Manufacture, and at variance with those in the certificate of registration."

2. The petitioner submits that the said finding cannot stand with Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, in which, the case of another similar vehicle was considered. So the petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P2 and allowing the writ petition in the light of Ext.P3 judgment.

3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. He has reiterated the stand taken in Ext.P2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent also pointed out that the W.P.(C) No.8531/2007 2 vehicle involved in Ext.P3 judgment was a 15 year old vehicle whereas the petitioner's vehicle is only 13 years old. So she attempted to distinguish Ext.P3 judgment of this Court on facts. But I think the said distinguishing feature will not have any effect on the principles laid down in that decision. No one has a case that Ext.P3 is challenged in appeal or reversed. As long as Ext.P3 holds the field, - I am bound to follow that. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 is quashed. The respondent is directed to grant conversion of the vehicle as prayed for. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, Judge vns.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.