BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE material facts of the case are as follows : the petitioner is the registered owner of motor vehicle bearing No. GDT 7361. This was purchased by the petitioner from its former owner in December, 1978. Prior to the puschase, the vehicle had been registered in the Union Territo/y of goa, Daman and Diu. Thereafter, the petitioner brought the vehicle into the state of Karnataka. The description of the vehicle is that it is a 1970 model Tata dumper Lorry with double chassy with steel body. The vehicle also had a hydraulic jack. On account of the total failure of the jack and its operation, the vehicle could not be utilised as a dumper and, therefore, the petitioner converted the dumper lorry into a lorry with a single chassis and wodden body devoid of the jack. This was done by the petitioner after applying for permission on 12-12- 1978 to respondent-2 for transfer of the vehicle to his name together with an application for permission to alter the dumper lorry into an open body lorry and the permission was granted accordingly. Thereafter, as ordered by respondent-2 in his order granting permission for alteration, the petitioner produced the lorry for inspection not only before effecting the alteration but also subsequent to the completion of the alteration. The production of the vehicle for inspection of respondent-2 at Sirsi camp after the alteration was carried out was on 17-4 1979. It is stated that the petitioner appraised respondent-2 that the registered laden weight of the lorry requires to be revised and also reduced since the weight of the lorry has diminished consequent to its conversion from dumper lorry into a lotry with a single chassis and wooden body without the jack. According to the petitioner, as a result of conversion, the lorry was incapable of carrying the laden weight of 11500 gs. as entered by the manufacturer of the lorry and reflected in the R. C. book. However, respondent-2 ignored the contentions of the petitioner and proceeded to pass an order increasing the registered laden weight of the vehicle from 11500 Kgs. to 14375 Kgs. and further recorded the laden weight of the vehicle in the R. C. book at 14375 kgs. with effect from 17-4-1979, vide annexure-A. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order and appealed to respondent-1. to 14375 Kgs. and further recorded the laden weight of the vehicle in the R. C. book at 14375 kgs. with effect from 17-4-1979, vide annexure-A. The petitioner was aggrieved by the said order and appealed to respondent-1. However, respondent-1 confirmed the order of respondent-2 and dismissed the appeal on 28-9-1979 relying on a Government Notification No. HD 94 TMA 75 dated 20/23-10-1975, vide annexure-B. The order passed by respondent-1 is Annexure-C. In view of these reverses suffered by the petitioner, the controversy has found its way into this Court. ( 2 ) THE point for consideration in this writ petition is whether respondent-2 was justified in increasing the laden weight of the vehicle purpoiting to set on the basis of the Government Notification dated 20/23-10-1975, vide Annexure-B. Conversely, the question is whether, as contended by the petitioner, the authority should have recorded a weight less than the weight fixed by the manufacturer and reflected in the R. C. book consequent to the conversion of the original dumper lorry into a lorry with a single chassis and wooden body without a jack. ( 3 ) IT is necessary to consider the order passed by respondent-2 and to see what reasons have been assigned by him for recording an increased laden weight. Annexure-A is the order passed by respondent-2 which is impugned in this writ petition. What could be granted from a reading of this order is that the petitioner had applied for alteration of body from dumper into open body (Goods vehicle) besides applying for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question and that permission was granted on 12-12-1978 with a direction to produce the motor vehicle for inspection after converting the body. Thereafter, the motor vehicle was, in fact, produced before respondent-2 on 17-4-1979 and was inspected at Sirsi camp. On inspection, it is stated that, it was found with the body open tyre size is 900x20 2 and 900x20 2. The unladen weight, as recorded in B. C. , was 4080 k. Gs. and the registered laden weight had to be enhanced by 25% from the original registered laden weight fixed by the r. T O. , Panjim, Goa. On inspection, it is stated that, it was found with the body open tyre size is 900x20 2 and 900x20 2. The unladen weight, as recorded in B. C. , was 4080 k. Gs. and the registered laden weight had to be enhanced by 25% from the original registered laden weight fixed by the r. T O. , Panjim, Goa. It is further noticed from Annexure-A that in exercise of the powers conferred under the Government order No. TTL (7)/58 dated 15-1-1959, respondent-2 proceeded to enhance the registered laden weight by 25% as against the registered laden weight fixed by the Assistant Director of Transport, panjim, Goa, in respect of transport vehicle bearing registration No. GDT 7361 with effect from 17-4-1979. The result was enhancement of 25% of the registered laden weight entailing an increase from 11500 KGs. to 14375 K. Gs. and, ultimately, the tax on the vehicle being enhanced proportionately. ( 4 ) FROM the bodv of the impugned order vide Annexure-A, there is no material to infer that the competent authority has taken steps to revise the registered weight of the vehicle after it had undergone conversion. Whenever an application is made for conversion of a vehicle, as in the instant case, to meet a different purpose altogether after undergoing a substantial structural change in the body of the vehicle, before proceeding to fix the registered laden weight, the unladen weight of the vehicle also should be re-determined. Obviously, such a determination is possible only when there is a re-weighment of the vehicle It is only after such a re-weighment, it is possible to determine the total weight of the vehicle and to certify the load and registered by the Registering Authority as permissible for that vehicle. Mere reliance on the original laden weight determined by the manufacturer when the vehicle rolled out of the manufacturing assembly line will not reflect either the correct unladen weight or the registered laden weight of the vehicle. The procedure adopted by the authority in this case, to say the least, falls short of statutory requirements inasmuch as there is non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 36 and Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The procedure adopted by the authority in this case, to say the least, falls short of statutory requirements inasmuch as there is non-compliance with the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 36 and Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 5 ) I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order vide Annexure-A suffers from serious infirmity since respondent-2 has mechanically exercised powers, arbitrarily enhanced the registered laden weight by 25% over the registered laden weight fixed by the Assistant Director of Transport, Panjim, Goa, who, in turn, had based the registered laden weight on the weight fixed by the manufacturer in respect of the vehicle before it was converted. In the circumstances of the case, I hold that enhancement by 25% of the registered laden weight of motor vehicle No. GDT 7631 and consequent raise from 11500 K. Gs. to 14375 K. Gs. is without the authority of law. I further hold that fixation of tax on the vehicle based on the increased registered laden weight is unwarranted and unsustainable. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-B dated 20/23-10-1975 which only stipulates the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of such vehicles depending on the fact whether the vehicles are of 1952 or earlier models of all makes or whether the vehicles are of 1953 and subsequent models of all makes. This cannot be the basis for respondent-2 to re-determine either the laden weight or the registered laden weight of the vehicle in question. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders vide Annexures 'a' and 'c' are quashed. Respondent-2 is directed to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 12-12-1978 in accordance with law. Notwithstanding the persuasion of the learned Govt. Pleader sri Ramesh, having regard to the lack of diligence on the part of respondent-2, I award costs of Rs. 500. 00 to the petitioner in this case. Petition allowed with costs of Rs. 500. 00. --- *** --- .