The court established that vehicles used for demonstration purposes by dealers must be registered, as they are not classified as vehicles intended for sale to consumers.

JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is an Association of Automobile dealers in Kerala, which is registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, as evident from Ext.P1 certificate of registration dated 29.03.2006. The 2^nd petitioner is a dealer of passenger vehicles manufactured by Mercedes-Benz and a member of the 1^st petitioner Association. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 circular dated 06.08.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent Transport Commissioner, whereby the Deputy Transport Commissioner, the Regional Transport Officers and the Joint Regional Transport Officers are directed to take necessary steps to ensure registration of the vehicles kept by automobile dealers for test drive, on the ground that some of the automobile dealers are using such vehicles for test drive for longer periods and thereafter, selling those vehicles at a lower price, which cause revenue loss to the State Exchequer. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 check report dated 26.07.2018; Ext.P5 tax receipt dated 02.08.2018 (evidencing remittance of motor vehicle tax of Rs.10,92,820/- in respect of the 2^nd petitioner's vehicle to which Ext.P4 check report has been issued); and also Ext.P8 notice dated 16.08.2018 issued by the 4^th respondent Regional Transport Officer, Kannur, whereby the automobile dealers are required to register their vehicles kept for test drive. The further relief sought for is a declaration that the directions contained in Ext.P2 circular are violative of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act') and the rules framed thereunder and hence unenforceable; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to insist the bona fide dealers of motor vehicles, who have obtained trade certificates under Rules 33 and 35 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the CMV Rules') to register the vehicles in their possession for using the same for demonstration purposes (hereinafter referred to as 'demo vehicles').

2. On 09.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Special Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. On 17.10.2018, the learned Special Government Pleader sought time to file statement.

3. On 31.10.2018, a statement of the 5^th respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer is placed on record. On

13.11.2018, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit.

4. On 03.12.2018, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to get instructions from the 2^nd petitioner as to the total number of 'demo vehicles' in its dealership and also the total number of trade certificates. The learned counsel was also directed to get instructions as to whether 'demo vehicles' are purchased by the dealership.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether any interference is warranted on Ext.P2 circular dated 06.08.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent Transport Commissioner whereby, the registering authorities in the