K.Devasenapathy v. The Regional Transport Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN and W.M.P.Nos.46645 & 46646 of 2025 K.Devasenapathy Petitioner(s) Vs The Regional Transport Officer RTO, Central Zone, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore641 018 Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 25.09.2025 in R.No.46847/A2/2025 passed by the respondent, quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to register the petitioner's Mahindra Bolero Camper Gold ZX 2WD PS BS-VI bearing Engine No.JNS4D19699 and Chassis No.MA1RY2JNKS5D36421 as a Non-Transport
Light Motor Vehicle.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Manoharan For Mr.N.Ponraj For Respondent(s):
Mr.M.Shajahan Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner purchased a light motor vehicle manufactured by M/s.Mahindra and the model of the vehicle is "Mahindra Bolero Camper Gold ZX 2WD PS BSVI". The petitioner asserts that it is a light motor vehicle, capable of carrying five persons.
2. The petitioner further states that it is going to be used only for his private purposes and not for any commercial or public use.
3. After the purchase, the petitioner approached the respondent for registration of the vehicle. He applied under "Non-transport" vehicle category. However, the respondent did not act on the application. Hence, the petitioner gave a representation on 16.07.2025, and as the same did not evince any response, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29593 of 2025. The said writ
petition was disposed of, following the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.654 of 2017 and W.P. No. 11378 of 2016. By the aforesaid order, the order impugned in that writ petition was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the respondent to consider the plea of registering the same as a "NonTransport Light Motor Vehicle".
4. On remand, the respondent passed an order, holding that the vehicle will be registered as a transport vehicle, and not as a "Non-Transport Vehicle" as sought by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition.
5. I heard Mr. N. Manoharan for Mr. N. Ponraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr.M.Shajahan, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent.
6. Mr. Shajahan refers to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent to urge that the class of vehicle has been changed by the petitioner and it does not match with the details of the vehicle uploaded by M/s. Mahindra, based on the
Type Approval Certificate under Form 22 of the Motor Vehicles Rules. He further urges that this issue has been covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.34827 of 2013 dated 11.06.2014, whereunder this Court had rejected the request made by the petitioner therein to register the vehicle under the "Non-Transport" category. Hence, he seeks confirmation of the order.
7. In response, Mr. Manoharan points out that five Hon'ble Judges of this Court have taken a view that vehicles, as covered in the present writ petition, should be registered only as "Non-Transport" category, as the same is not being used for any transport or commercial purposes. He therefore prays that the impugned order should be quashed, and a direction must be given to the respondents to register the vehicle under the category, in which the petitioner seeks to register it.
8. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and have gone through the records.
9. It is pertinent to point out here that the order relied upon by the respondent in W.P. No. 34827 of 2013, dated 11.06.2014, was not a case of the vehicle as in the present case. It was a light motor vehicle under the "LMV-GVD-Max Crew Cab" category. It was in those circumstances that the learned Judge referred to Rule 2(h) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to conclude that a "non-transport vehicle" means a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle. The very same learned Judge (The Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Vaidyanathan) had taken a view that the vehicle in the category, in which the petitioner's relates to, namely, "Mahindra Bolero Camper", should be registered as a light motor vehicle, in W.P. No. 5532 of 2015, dated 09.03.2015. The view taken by the learned Judge had found acceptance in the hands of this Court W.P. No.34430 of 2014, dated 30.10.2015 (By The Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.Mahadevan, as the Hon'ble Justice then was)
10. In these two earlier cases with respect to the very same model, viz., "Mahindra Bolero Camper', this Court took a view that the vehicle cannot be registered as a transport vehicle, as it does not fall under the said category under
the Rules. A direction was given to the respondents, that in such circumstances, they should register the vehicle as a light motor vehicle i.e., privately-owned light motor vehicle. Yet again, this view has been reiterated with respect to "Mahindra Bolero Camper" in W.P. No. 11378 of 2016, dated 12.04.2016.
11. When the law has been so clearly declared by this Court, holding that the vehicle of the category to which the writ petition relates, namely, 'Mahindra Bolero Camper', should be registered as a non-transport private motor vehicle, the insistence of the respondent to register it as a transport vehicle, cannot be sustained.
12. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed. The respondent shall register the petitioner's vehicle bearing Engine No.JNS4D19699 and Chassis No.MA1RY2JNKS5D36421, as a non-transport light motor vehicle and issue the certificate within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
13. This writ petition is ordered. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25-11-2025 kak Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Regional Transport Officer RTO Central Zone, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Coimbatore641 018
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
kak 25-11-2025