The 1^st 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

6

the State are directed to take necessary steps to ensure

registration of the vehicles kept by the automobile dealers for

demonstration purposes, i.e., 'demo vehicles'.

7.

After the order of this Court dated 03.12.2018, the

learned counsel for the petitioners has made available for the

perusal of this Court the stock list maintained by the 2^nd

petitioner, in which 'demo vehicles' are also included. The

learned counsel has also made available for the perusal of this

Court the tax invoice in respect of two vehicles, as per which

the 2^nd petitioner purchased 'demo