BIJU.K.K Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANS TOWERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the reference to facts and exhibits is from W.P(C).No.13689 of 2019.

(2.) The petitioners in both these writ petitions are aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondent authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act , rejecting their request for renewal of trade certificates that were issued to them in their capacity as the dealers of motor vehicles. In the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.13689 of 2019, he is stated to be the sub dealer of the main dealer appointed by Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India (Pvt.) Limited, whereas, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.13144 of 2019, he is stated to be the authorized dealer appointed by TVS Motors Company Limited. Both the writ petitioners are authorized by the respective manufacturers of two wheeler vehicles to function as sub-dealer and dealer. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.13689 of 2019 that the manufacturer concerned had permitted the authorized dealer for Kottayam District to appoint him as Sub dealer for Karukachal area and accordingly, a letter of intent, followed by a regular agreement, was entered into between the authorized dealer and the petitioner, for functioning as the sub dealer of two wheeler vehicles manufactured by the Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India (Pvt.) Limited. It is the case in the writ petition that although, for the years between 2016 and 2018, the necessary trade certificates were issued by the respondent authorities to the petitioners, when an application was put in for renewal of the trade certificates for the year 2018-2019, the same was rejected by Ext.P9 order, on the ground that the petitioner had not been directly appointed by Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India (Pvt.) Limited and further , that in as much there was a sale by the main dealer to the petitioner as sub dealer, it was a second sale which offended the provisions of Rule 42 of the Center Motor Vehicle Rules.

(3.) Aggrieved by Ext.P9 order of the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent which also came to be rejected by Ext.P10 order. In the writ petition, Exts.P9 and P10 orders are impugned inter alia, on the contention that the respondents did not understand the true scope and ambit on the term 'Dealer' for the purposes of issuance of trade certificate to the petitioner.