1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that petitioner's trade mark on Tank Trucks under contract with the petitioners, evident from Ext.P1 series of photographs does not amount to advertisement or exhibition of the advertisement as envisaged under Rule 191 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 [hereinafter called the 'KMV Rules'] and also to quash Ext.P12 by which it was held that petitioner is liable to pay advertising charges as provided under Rule 191 of the KMV Rules, and for other related reliefs.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are thus:

3. Petitioner is a Public Sector Oil Marketing Company involved in refining and retail sale of petroleum products such as petrol, diesel, auto LPG, cooking LPG etc., which are commodities under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Petitioner has set up a Terminal for storage and supply of petroleum products to retail outlets, at Irumpanam in Ernakulam District, which has commenced its operation in the year 2004. Petitioner has also a storage depot at Elathur, Calicut. From the Irumpanam Terminal and Elathur Depot, petroleum products including Aviation Turbine Fuel are transported to various retail outlets and other consumers through contracted Tank Trucks. Across India, these Tank Trucks are taken on exclusive contract through public tender and as per the terms of such tender, the Tank Trucks are supposed to have the HPCL trademark clearly advertised on the tank and cabin for distinguishing the petitioner's Tank Trucks from that of other Trucks on contract with other Oil Marketing Companies. That apart, it is contended that, such a system has been prevalent for several decades and more than 400 Tank Trucks are under contract with petitioner for transport and supply of petroleum products in the State of Kerala.

4. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that, permanent advertising of the petitioner's trademark on Trucks exclusively transporting petroleum products is necessary to differentiate the Tankers with that of the other similarly operated companies. That apart, it is also contended that, such easily recognizable and visual differentiation is necessary for several reasons such as checking unfair practices like adulteration, pilferage etc. by the contractors apart from alerting the company in the event of any accident. Other contentions are raised to justify the writings made in the Tank Trucks to contend and canvass the proposition that, they are not advertisement but are requirements under law. That apart, it is also contended that, no manner of advertisement is done by incorporating such materials on the Tank Trucks. That, there is no element of advertising, since no writings are provided to attract consumers for the products of the company.

5. The issue started pursuant to Ext.P2 check report of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, to which petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 dated 01.07.2014 and Ext.P4 dated 16.09.2014 to the State Minister concerned and the Transport Commissioner respectively. Anyhow, according to the petitioner, thereafter no action was further pursued based on Ext.P2. However, by Exts.P5 to P10 issued by Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Ernakulam and Sub R.T. Office, Tripunithura respectively, petitioner was directed to remit advertising charges as provided under Rule

191. It is in that background, petitioner has submitted a representation before the Transport Commissioner. The Transport Commissioner, after considering the representation submitted by the petitioner, issued Ext.P12 declining permission for displaying of unauthorised advertisement of any form in the vehicles for various purposes operated by the petitioner otherwise than as provided under Rule 191 of KMV Rules. It is thus aggrieved by Ext.P12, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

6. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Sri. E.K. Nandakumar appearing for the petitioner and Smt