Judgment :- Petitioners who arc the owners of Tourer Jeeps with registration as omni bus want to operate it as goods carriage. They filed applications for altering the class of vehicle to goods vehicle. Ext.P6 in O.P.14083/92 and Ext.P-7 in all other Original Petitions are the proceedings of the respondent rejecting the applications. The challenge in all these original petitions is against the rejection of the applications. 2. Contention of the petitioners is that the Motor Vehicles Act or Rules do not contain any prohibition with regard to the conversion of passenger vehicle into goods vehicle and so Ext.P6 and P-7 cannot be sustained. 3. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the registered owners/ application for conversion of the class of the vehicle should have been allowed, in the normal course by the respondent. In other words, whether the registered owner of the vehicle is the sole arbiter to decide the conversion of the class of his vehicle is the moot point that has to be considered. The respondent rejected the applications for alteration of the class of the vehicle from Omni bus to goods vehicle on the ground that the prototype of the vehicle was not tested for goods carrier. Contention of the respondent is that a vehicle which has been registered as an omni bus cannot be converted into a goods vehicle so long as the prototype of the vehicle remains the same and that the conversion can be granted only when the prototype of the vehicle was tested for being it used as a goods vehicle. 4. Admittedly petitioners' vehicles were registered as omni buses. Applications filed by the petitioners were rejected on the ground that vehicles which are manufactured after undergoing prototype tests for passenger vehicle and intended to be used for the purpose for which the prototype was tested cannot be altered to a goods vehicle. In Ext. P-6 circular issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport it is made clear that pick-up vans and similar light commercial vehicles manufactured after undergoing prototype tests and intended to be used only for the purpose for which the prototype has been tested cannot be altered and got registered as passenger vehicle unless the prototype testing also covers the use of the vehicles as a passenger vehicle. The circular makes the position clear that so long as the prototype test of the petitioners' vehicles does not cover its use as goods vehicle it cannot be altered and got registered as goods vehicle. As the petitioners have no case that their vehicles underwent prototype test for using it as goods vehicle, their contention that the respondent went wrong in rejecting their application for conversion of the class of the vehicle cannot be accepted. Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules requires the manufacturer of motor vehicles to submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defense of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India or the Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute or such other agencies specified by the Central Government for certification and as the Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport as per clarification No.RT/11011/1/88 TAG dated 31-7-1990 clarified that the pick up vans and similar light commercial vehicles are manufactured aer they undergo prototype tests and it is intended to be used only for the purpose for which the prototype has been tested the respondent rightly rejected the request of the petitioners for alteration of the class of vehicles into goods vehicles. 5. As the petitioners 'vehicles were not subjected to prototype tests for being used as goods vehicles, the respondent was justified in rejecting their applications. There is no merit in the Original petitions. O.Ps are dismissed.