Judgment : This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to register the vehicle “Mahindra Bolero Camper 4WD” as Light Motor Vehicle – Motor Car. The petitioner is intending to purchase a vehicle of the above said make, for his personal use as a passenger vehicle. Since it was apprehended that the vehicle of the above make and type will not be registered as a private vehicle (LMV-Motor Car), the petitioner submitted application to the second respondent under the Right to Information Act, for furnishing the following informations: 1) Whether the vehicle ‘Mahindra Bolero Camper 4WD’ and its variants can be registered as a private vehicle in Kerala? (copy of the specifications enclosed). 2) If not, the reasons for not registering the same. 3) If there any notification superseding the notification No.C3/3854/2002 directing the registration of the vehicle ‘Mahindra Bolero Camper 4WD’ and its variants (as private vehicle). In Ext.P4 reply given to the petitioner, it is stated that the type of the said vehicle is “goods and passenger vehicle – normal control”. But it is stated that there exist a doubt as to whether the vehicle is to be registered as a ‘Non-Transport Vehicle’ or as a ‘Transport Vehicle’, and therefore clarification is sought from the Transport Commissioner. But since no confirmation has been received either way regarding the registration of the vehicle, the petitioner is approaching this court seeking directions as stated above. 2. The first respondent in their counter affidavit submits that as per the certificate issued by the Automotive Research Association of India, the type of body of the above said vehicle is specified as “goods and passenger vehicle”. It is admitted that as per the prototype approval certificate of ARAI, the gross vehicle weight is specified as 2750 kgs. And seating capacity is 5/6 persons. Presumably on the above basis, it is admitted in the counter affidavit that, the vehicle in question is a “Light Motor Vehicle”. But it is stated that no certificate was issued by the Automotive Research Association of India to register the above vehicle as a private vehicle. Further it is stated that the said vehicle cannot be registered as a motor car (non transport vehicle) since the vehicle is constructed to carry goods also. But it is stated that no certificate was issued by the Automotive Research Association of India to register the above vehicle as a private vehicle. Further it is stated that the said vehicle cannot be registered as a motor car (non transport vehicle) since the vehicle is constructed to carry goods also. The further contention of the respondent is that as per Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods is a ‘Goods Carriage’, and as per Section 2(47) a goods carriage is a Transport Vehicle. In the counter affidavit it is stated that a clarification has already been issued to the RTO, Kozhikode to register such type of vehicles on the basis of the nature of use of the vehicle. 3. The petitioner had produced Ext.P2 registration certificate evidencing that a vehicle of the same make and type is already registered as ‘Light Motor Vehicle – Motor Car” by the registering authority at Thrissur. The learned Government Pleader produced for my perusal the written instructions received from the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram, stating that, directions have already been issued to the Regional Transport Officer, Thrissur, to reclassify the vehicle covered under Ext.P2 from non-transport vehicle to the category of transport vehicle (good carriage). In the above said letter it is further stated that no other case of registration of the vehicle of the same type as non transport vehicle has come to the notice of the Transport Commissioner, and that instructions has been given to all registering authorities to register the above type of vehicles only as transport vehicle (goods carriage). 4. Here the vehicle in question is not constructed or adapted solely for the carriage of goods, but it is constructed and adapted for carriage of goods and passengers. The question whether such vehicles need be treated as Transport Vehicles came for consideration before this court in Alex Thomas Vs. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 603). The vehicle which was the subject matter of that case is “Mahindra & Mahindra Utiliti”. The question whether such vehicles need be treated as Transport Vehicles came for consideration before this court in Alex Thomas Vs. State of Kerala (2008 (4) KLT 603). The vehicle which was the subject matter of that case is “Mahindra & Mahindra Utiliti”. There is a description about the vehicle, based on its photograph produced, which will indicate that the vehicle, based on its photograph produced, which will indicate that the vehicle in the instant case also is more or less similar in nature. The unladen weight of the vehicle in that case is 1690 kgs., and the unladen weight of the vehicle in this case is 2750 kgs. Hence both the vehicles comes within the definition of Light Motor vehicle. The question considered in the said case is that; when the owner is not using the vehicle as a goods carriage but only using the same for carriage of passengers, whether he need be insisted to paid the vehicle in accordance with Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. In the said decision this court observed as follows:- “It is not in dispute that the vehicle of the petitioner is not designated solely for carriage of goods. But it may come under the second limb of the definition of “goods carriage”, that is a motor vehicle though not constructed or adapted solely for carriage of goods but used for carriage of goods. So if the petitioner uses or intends to use the vehicle for carriage of goods, then he has to paint the same as provided under Rule 304 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules. The respondents can insist for such painting, if they find that the petitioner is using his vehicle as a goods carriage, though strictly it is not constructed or adapted solely for use as a goods carriage. But, if it is not used for carrying goods and it is used only for other purposes, there cannot be any insistence for painting the same in accordance with Rule 304.” In the above said decision this court had regularized the interim order already issued to register the vehicle as non-transport vehicle. But it is made clear that if the authority concerned finds that the vehicle is being used as a goods carriage, the authority can insist with such painting. But it is made clear that if the authority concerned finds that the vehicle is being used as a goods carriage, the authority can insist with such painting. But if it is not used for carrying goods and if it is used only for other purposes, there cannot be any such insistence for painting the same. 5. Considering the dictum in the above cited case, it is clear that with respect to a vehicle which is constructed and adapted not for carriage of goods alone, the user of the vehicle is the prime aspect which need be considered for deciding the question whether it is to be treated as a transport vehicle or as a non-transport vehicle. Therefore, I do not think it is justified to take a uniform stand to register such type of vehicle as Transport vehicle in all cases without taking into consideration of the user of the vehicle. The question whether it is a non transport vehicle or a transport vehicle need be decided on the basis of the user of the vehicle. In this case, it is admitted that the vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle. If it is a light motor vehicle, it need be given registration as light motor vehicle, provided it is not used as a goods carriage. If it is not used as a goods carriage, it cannot be treated as a transport vehicle, but only as a non-transport vehicle. 6. In view of the observations made above, I hold that the vehicle which the petitioner is intending to purchase need be registered as a non-transport vehicle and as a Light Motor Vehicle. It is always left open to the authorities to reclassify the vehicle as a transport vehicle, if it is brought to the notice that the vehicle is used for carriage of goods. 7. In the result, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to issue registration to “Mahindra Bolero Camper 4WD” vehicle, if any brought by the petitioner for registration as a non-transport Light Motor Vehicle. Needless to say that depending on the use of the vehicle respondents can always be at liberty to reclassify the vehicle as a transport vehicle, if it is found that the vehicle is being used for carriage of goods. Writ petition is disposed of as above.