K C CARIAPPA Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner intends to purchase a Mahindra Bolero Canoer 4 WD vehicle manufactured by M/s.Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Mumbai. Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner has already placed an order for delivery of the vehicle and pursuant to which the manufacturer has already alloted the vehicle having the descriptions given under Ext.P2 to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner enquired with the registering authority. The enquiries with the registering authority would reveal that the said vehicle on delivery would not be registered as a private vehicle. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, in the light of the decision of this Court in Cherian v. Transport Commissioner (2009 (2) KLT 583) the registering authority is bound to register the said vehicle as a private vehicle.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) Admittedly, the issue involved in this case is squarely covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the decision of this Court in Cherian v. Transport Commissioner (supra). Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder: In case the petitioner produces the vehicle for registration, the registering authority shall register the same as a private light motor vehicle in the light of the decision of this Court in Cherian v. Transport Commissioner (supra). It is made clear that in case the vehicle is subsequently found to be used as a goods vehicle, the authority would be free to reclassify the vehicle.