JUDGMENT : P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J. 1. Petitioner owns a medium goods vehicle. She had effected certain alterations to the body of the said vehicle by increasing its length and height, for the purpose of transporting coconut husks, coconut fibres etc. The validity of the certificate of fitness of the vehicle expired on 20.12.2016. The petitioner, thereupon, applied for renewal of the certificate of fitness of the vehicle. The writ petition was filed thereafter alleging that the competent authority is not inspecting the vehicle and granting the renewal of the certificate of fitness sought by the petitioner on account of the alterations made to the body of the vehicle. The petitioner has also a case that the goods carriage permit granted to the vehicle is also not being issued as the fitness certificate of the vehicle has not been renewed. According to the petitioner, the alterations made to the body of the vehicle are alterations permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act and the certificate of fitness of the vehicle cannot, therefore, be denied on that ground. The petitioner seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2. When the matter came up for admission on 3.2.2017, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner has not produced the vehicle for inspection. In the light of the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the petitioner agreed to produce the vehicle for inspection on 6.2.2017 and the vehicle has been, accordingly, produced for inspection before the competent authority on the said day. 3. A statement has been filed in this matter after the inspection of the vehicle stating that the horizontal length of the body the vehicle has been extended beyond the chassis by 66 cms. that the height of the body of the vehicle was raised by 110cm. from the height certified by the manufacturer and that the un-laden weight of the vehicle has been varied from 4550 kg. to 5260 kg. According to the respondents, the alteration of the body of the vehicle from the specifications mentioned by the manufacturer is contrary to Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and would lead to loss of stability for the vehicle. It is stated that the vehicle is, therefore, not fit for use on the road. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled get the certificate of fitness of the vehicle renewed. 4. It is stated that the vehicle is, therefore, not fit for use on the road. According to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled get the certificate of fitness of the vehicle renewed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 5. In W.P. (C) No. 29946 of 2016, relying on the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules 96 and 103 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, this Court took the view that there can be alterations affecting even the basic feature of the vehicle and it is obligatory for the competent authority to endorse such alterations in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, provided the vehicle is fit to be used in public places after the alteration. The view taken by this Court in the said case has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Jayachandran vs. Regional Transport Officer, 2012 (4) KLT 729 , indicating that there can be alterations without offending the prescriptions contained in Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. In the light of the aforesaid decisions, I have no hesitation to hold that the certificate of fitness sought in respect of a vehicle cannot be denied merely for the reason that the length, height, un-laden weight etc. of the vehicle have been varied from the manufacturer's specifications. What is to be seen in such cases is whether the vehicle is fit for use in public place. This has to be considered independently of the specifications as to the length, height, un-laden weight etc. of the manufacturer of the vehicle. In other words, if it is found that the vehicle is fit for use in public place even after the variation of the specifications, the variations are to be endorsed in the certificate of registration the vehicle and certificate of fitness shall be issued to the vehicle. 6. A close reading of the statement filed in this matter by the respondents indicates that the stand that the vehicle of the petitioner is not fit for use in public places, is taken by the respondents on the ground that the specifications of the manufacturer as regards the height, length and un-laden weight of the vehicle have been varied. 6. A close reading of the statement filed in this matter by the respondents indicates that the stand that the vehicle of the petitioner is not fit for use in public places, is taken by the respondents on the ground that the specifications of the manufacturer as regards the height, length and un-laden weight of the vehicle have been varied. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the fitness of the vehicle for use in public places, independent of the specifications of the manufacturer and issue certificate of fitness as also the permit sought by the petitioner, if the vehicle is found fit for use in public places.