JUDGMENT : 1. This interlocutory application has been filed seeking clarification of the judgment in Francis v. State of Kerala [ 2016 (1) KLT 821 ] dealing with the alteration of motor cycles. The State of Kerala as well as the Regional Transport officer are the applicants and have detailed the various alterations commonly made to motor cycles. They contend that there is a sudden spurt in accidents involving motor cycles and that rampant alterations are done to perform bike stunts as well as single wheeling. They want all the alternations to be specified lest the riders of the motor cycles are caught off guard for alleged alterations effected. 2. It is clarified that any material change in the motor cycle different from that approved by the manufacturer amounts to a structural alteration under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The commonly noticed alterations are the following:- i) Replacement of front forks ii) Modification of rear shock absorbers done on swing arm iii) Removal of head lights and gauges iv) Removal of crash guards, foot rests, rear view mirrors etc. v) Fitting of additional iron brackets. Any alteration as above on the motor cycles empowers the concerned authorities to deal with the offenders sternly in accordance with the principles laid in Francis’s case (supra). This will not however disable the riders of the motor cycles to have any additional accessories to enhance the comfort ofcourse without effecting alteration to the vehicles. 3. It is reported that Circular No.5/2016 has been issued by the Transport Commissionerate to give effect to the judgment in Francis’s case by conducting regular checking on the roads. Reliance was also placed on Section 213(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act as regards the powers conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department. Section 213(5)(d) of the Act reads as follows:- 213. Reliance was also placed on Section 213(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act as regards the powers conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department. Section 213(5)(d) of the Act reads as follows:- 213. Appointment of motor vehicles officers:- (1) x x x x (2) x x x x (3) x x x x (4) x x x x (5) In addition to the powers that may be conferred on any officer of the Motor Vehicles Department under sub-section (3), such officer as may be empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall also have the power to: (a) x x x x (b) x x x x (c) x x x x (d) seize or take copies of any registers or documents or portions thereof as he may consider relevant in respect of an offence under this Act which he has reason to believe has been committed. There is thus power for an officer of the Motor Vehicles Department to seize or take copies of any registers or documents or portions thereof as he may consider relevant. The statutory provision is vaguely worded and it can reasonably be deciphered that the terms ‘registers’ or ‘documents’ take in the certificate of registration of a vehicle also. 4. Rule 405 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 clarifies that officers of the Motor Vehicles Department shall exercise the powers and perform the duties assigned to them under the Act. Therefore the officers of the Motor Vehicles Department as empowered by the State Government in this behalf shall have the power to seize any register or document. The same shall be resorted to only if the officer considers it relevant in respect of an offence under the Act and in exceptional circumstances. The observation in Francis’s case that the certificate of registration need not be retained till the defects of alteration are rectified does not detract from the above proposition. This is particularly so since the owner of the vehicle in Francis’s case offered to have the offence compounded by the payment of fine which is reported to have been remitted subsequently. The interlocutory application is disposed of.