Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 778 (KER)

Justin Joseph v. Additional Registering Authority

2012-08-14

K.SURENDRA MOHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order by which an application submitted by the petitioner for the registration of his vehicle has been rejected. Ext.P4 has been issued for the reason that, the proposed alteration would change the basic features of the vehicle and thereby the particulars recorded in the Certificate of Registration in respect of the type of body, unladen weight etc. as well as the load carrying capacity of the vehicle would be changed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Section 52 permits alterations to be conducted. It is also pointed out that construing the terms of Section 52, this Court has held that the question regarding permissibility of a particular alteration would have to be decided by the competent authority after a physical examination of the altered vehicle. The counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in WP(C).No.29946 of 2006. Since Ext.P4 has not been issued in compliance with the directions contained in the above judgment of this Court, it is contended that the said order is liable to be set aside. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to the counter-affidavit, the vehicle of the petitioner was originally 'open', which has been converted to a 'closed' vehicle. Therefore, the alteration that has been effected has resulted in a change in the basic features of the vehicle, which is not permissible. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously. 4. A similar question had arisen in the unreported decision of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in WP(C).No.29946 of 2006. In the said case also, an open body vehicle had been converted into a closed body vehicle. This Court considered the scope of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and has held that, alteration of a motor vehicle is permissible under Section 52 of the Act. However, the altered vehicle would thereafter have to be inspected by the competent authority and his satisfaction would have to be recorded that the same was fit to be used in a public place. However, the altered vehicle would thereafter have to be inspected by the competent authority and his satisfaction would have to be recorded that the same was fit to be used in a public place. The conclusions of this Court are contained in the following passage in paragraph 3 of the said judgment: "Going by the above Rules, the modified vehicle shall be inspected by the Registering Authority or caused to be inspected by the said officer and it should be certified that the vehicle is roadworthy and can be used in public place. So, if the registering authority finds and certifies that the alteration made will not make the vehicle unfit to be used in public place, the registration particulars can be changed accordingly and thereafter the vehicle can be permitted to be used on public roads. But, going by the explanation added to sub-section (5), alteration contemplated in the Act and the Rules takes in only alteration of basic feature." It has been further held by this Court in the said decision that a major variation cannot be sanctioned by the competent authority. The above conclusion of this Court is contained in paragraph 6 of the said judgment which reads as follows: "Minor alterations do not require the permission of the registering authority. Alterations which may be described as those affecting the basic feature of the vehicle alone require permission of the said authority. A certificate in Form MC is contemplated when the particulars of the vehicle are different from those cleared in the prototype test. So, additional constructions on the chassis, which will be noted in Form MC certificate can be the basis for entering particulars in the R.C., though they may be at variance with those recorded at the time of prototype test. Otherwise no chassis can be converted into a stage carriage or a goods carriage. So, the stand of the respondents that there cannot be any permission for variation involving the basic structure, cannot be accepted. There can be variation and if the competent officer certifies that the vehicle is fit to be used in public places after the variation, the same can be permitted and the varied details can be entered in the R.C." I am in respectful agreement with the above directions. 5. There can be variation and if the competent officer certifies that the vehicle is fit to be used in public places after the variation, the same can be permitted and the varied details can be entered in the R.C." I am in respectful agreement with the above directions. 5. A reading of Ext.P4 does not offer any indication that the directions of this Court extracted above have been complied with. The counter-affidavit filed also does not state whether the altered vehicle had been inspected by the competent authorities. Therefore, the fact remains that Ext.P4 was not preceded by a finding as to whether the vehicle after it is altered, was fit to be used in a public place or whether it was safe. Therefore, Ext.P4 is unsustainable. The same is accordingly set aside. 6. This writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for registration submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and the directions contained in the judgment of this Court referred to above, to inspect the same, and to enter a finding as to whether it is road worthy on the basis of the said directions and to pass final orders thereon. Final orders as indicated above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.