AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated
29.9.2018 of the 1st respondent Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode, denying temporary registration of the petitioner's vehicle for the purpose of
getting it registered at Mahe; and also Ext.P11 order dated 17.10.2018 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner (North Zone),
Kozhikode, whereby Ext.P10 appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P9 order stands rejected.
On 28.11.2018 when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Special Government Pleader took
notice for respondents 1 to 3. Respondents were directed to file counter affidavit within three weeks.
On 03.01.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration the learned Special Government Pleader sought further time to file counter
affidavit of the 1st respondent Regional Transport Officer. This Court noticed that as per Ext.P5 GST Registration Certificate, the principal place of
business of Mascol Ad Solutions LLP is at Mahe. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2018, the petitioner has produced Exts.P12 and P13 invoices dated
02.10.2018 and 03.11.2018 respectively, in order to show that he is doing advertising business at Mahe, after opening a branch of Mascol Ad Solutions
LLP, Calicut and therefore, by order dated 03.01.2019, the petitioner was directed to produce the GST returns in respect of Mahe branch of
M/s.Mascol Ad Solutions LLP.
On 07.02.2019, the 1st respondent has filed counter affidavit opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.
On 25.2.2019 when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court noticed that going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is
doing business in the name and style ""M/s.Mascol Ad Solution LLP"", which is having registered office at Caliut. By Ext.P3 resolution it was decided
to open a new branch at Mahe to expand the business. For that purpose, Ext.P5 GST registration was obtained for its Mahe Branch on 13.09.2018.
However, in Ext.P5 registration certificate, the principal place of business is shown as Mahe and the said document will not support the case of the
petitioner that the firm, which is having its registered office at Calicut has started a new branch at Mahe, after obtaining GST registration.
The learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment in order to obtain clarifications from the petitioner on Ext.P5 certificate of registration, in
which the principal place of business is shown as Mahe and the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions in that regard from the
2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner.
On 07.03.2019, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that based on the clarifications obtained on Ext.P5 registration certificate, an
additional reply affidavit of the petitioner shall be placed on record by 13.03.2019. On 14.03.2019, the petitioner has filed an additional affidavit.
Today, when this case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for in this writ petition has
become infructuous and therefore the petitioner has instructed him to withdraw this writ petition.
Recording the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.