JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, which is a company involved in the manufacture and sale of ice creams and frozen desserts, has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order dated 22.8.2017 of the 1st respondent Additional Registering Authority rejecting the application for registration of the petitioner's 'Medium Goods Vehicle' with temporary registration No.KL-10/S-Temp-4666 and also Ext.P9 order dated 26.10.2017 of the 2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner, who is the appellate authority. 2. The 1st respondent Additional Registering Authority, who is also arrayed in his personal capacity as the 4th respondent, has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.12.2017 opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. By the order dated 16.2.2018 in I.A.No.2982 of 2018, the heading of the counter affidavit was corrected as one filed by 'the 1st respondent'. 3. In the counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has contended that, on physical measurement it was found that the overall height of the petitioner's vehicle with closed body is 3420 mm, which has exceeded the overall height of 2420 mm mentioned in Ext.P10 Type Approval Certificate issued by the Automotive Research Association of India (for brevity, 'the ARAI') under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the CMV Rules'). In Ext.P10 certificate, different overall heights ranging from 2420 mm to 3130 mm are stipulated for vehicle with a wheel base of 3760 mm. However, vehicles with overall height ranging from 2455 to 3130 have increased overall width ranging from 2255 mm to 2370 mm and increased overall length ranging from 7195 mm to 7240 mm. Since the overall height of the petitioner's vehicle is not conforming to the stipulated height mentioned in the prototype approval, the 1st respondent found that the said vehicle violates Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. The 1st respondent has also contended that the maximum overall height of 3800 mm prescribed under Rule 93 of the CMV Rules cannot be permitted in smaller vehicles. Therefore, the 1st respondent rejected the application for registration vide Ext.P4 order and the findings in the said order was upheld by the 2nd respondent appellate authority in Ext.P9 order. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 4. Therefore, the 1st respondent rejected the application for registration vide Ext.P4 order and the findings in the said order was upheld by the 2nd respondent appellate authority in Ext.P9 order. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.180 of 2018 seeking an order to implead the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and also the manufacturer of the vehicle as additional 6th and 7th respondents. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.181 of 2018 seeking an order directing the additional 6th respondent to submit action-taken report in File No.R7718 (A636/2017/MPM) NRK. In the said interlocutory application, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 9.1.2018, raising serious allegations against the Managing Director of the petitioner. Along with the said counter affidavit, the 1st respondent has also produced Ext.R1(a) submission made by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, who conducted inspection of the petitioner's vehicle, regarding threatening 'WhatsApp' messages received by him and his colleagues. A true copy of the printout of such 'WhatsApp' messages is placed on record as Ext.R1(b). The petitioner has filed reply affidavit dated 13.1.2018 in I.A.No.180 of 2018 explaining the circumstances under which he had sent such 'WhatsApp' messages. Later, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1882 of 2018 seeking permission to withdraw I.A.Nos.180 of 2018 and 181 of 2018. In the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.1882 of 2018, the Managing Director of the petitioner has stated that, as he realised that his action in having sent messages to the officials of the Motor Vehicles Department was wrong, inappropriate and unjustified and that he may be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid interlocutory applications. Based on the averments made in the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.1882 of 2018, the petitioner is hereby permitted to withdraw I.A.Nos.180 of 2018 and 181 of 2018. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.180 of 2018 and 181 of 2018 stand dismissed as withdrawn. 5. Along with a memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader dated 17.1.2018, the inspection report dated 23.10.2017 of the team of Motor Vehicle Inspectors, who have inspected the petitioner's vehicle on 17.10.2017 is placed on record. The petitioner has filed an objection dated 19.1.2018 to the inspection report 23.10.2017. Along with a memo dated 25.1.2018, the petitioner has also produced a compact disc containing the video of the test conducted by the inspection team on 23.10.2017. The petitioner has filed an objection dated 19.1.2018 to the inspection report 23.10.2017. Along with a memo dated 25.1.2018, the petitioner has also produced a compact disc containing the video of the test conducted by the inspection team on 23.10.2017. 6. By the order dated 19.12.2017, the ARAI represented by its Director was suo motu impleaded as additional 5th respondent in this writ petition. Though urgent notice by speed post was taken out to additional 5th respondent, notice was not returned after service, even after the expiry of 30 days. The petitioner filed I.A.No.2800 of 2018 under Rule 51(2) of the Rules of the High Court of Kerala, 1971 and the said interlocutory application was allowed and service of notice on additional 5th respondent was declared as complete, as per the order dated 15.2.2018. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 8. The petitioner purchased a cab and chassis manufactured by M/s.Daimler India Commercial Vehicles Private Limited, under the brand 'Bharat Benz', and classified as 'Medium Goods Vehicle'. At the time of taking delivery from the authorised dealer at Kozhikode, the vehicle was provided with temporary registration No.KL-10/S-Temp-4666. The petitioner, after taking delivery, got an insulated container mounted on the vehicle by M/s. Cool Tech Containers Private Limited, which is an authorised/approved body building agency having Trade Certificate No.TN-19 (TC) 410. Additionally a refrigeration system was also mounted on the container. 9. After mounting the insulated container with refrigeration system, the petitioner submitted an application for registration of the vehicle before the 1st respondent Additional Registering Authority, on 9.5.2017. The said application was returned citing certain formalities to be completed in the documentation. On 22.5.2017 the 1st respondent accepted the application on file. Based on the inspection report of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, the 1st respondent rejected the said application for registration by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 26.5.2017 on the ground that the height of the vehicle is 3380 mm, which exceeds the permissible limit of 2420 mm as specified in ARAI Approval No. AAJ 0077 dated 28.3.2014. 10. Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent was under challenge in Ext.P2 appeal filed before the 2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner, under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act'). 10. Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent was under challenge in Ext.P2 appeal filed before the 2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner, under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the MV Act'). The said appeal was disposed of by Ext.P3 order dated 7.8.2017, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to re-inspect the vehicle and grant registration unless the vehicle is found as unstable, as no violation of the relevant provisions of the MV Act and the rules are found from the records. 11. In Ext.P3 order the 2nd respondent noticed that the application for registration is rejected on the ground that the permissible limit of overall height as specified by ARAI is 2420 mm and the said limit is exceeded by constructing a closed body on the chassis, and that it is a clear violation of the design specification and parameters. The 2nd respondent found that the 1st respondent proceeded with the matter on a misunderstanding that the cabin height of the chassis noted in ARAI approved vehicle specifications is the maximum overall height of the vehicle that can be allowed after constructing the body, which is not supported by the provisions of the CMV Rules or ARAI approval. Therefore, the 2nd respondent held that, the 1st respondent cannot reject application for registration alleging violation of overall height on account of increase in total body height than the height of the cabin of the chassis. The 2nd respondent noticed further that, the 1st respondent presumed that, with the present overall height the vehicle will not have stability while driving on the road. However, it is not clear from Ext.P1 order and records, whether the 1st respondent had conducted any stability test on the road to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicle will not have sufficient stability while driving on curves and the reasons or findings thereon are also not found mention in the said order. Therefore, the 2nd respondent concluded in Ext.P3 order that in the absence of such credible tests and findings, instability cannot be alleged and established. In Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent has also noted the case of the petitioner, with reference to the materials placed on record, that similar vehicles with same measurements are operating on the road. 12. Therefore, the 2nd respondent concluded in Ext.P3 order that in the absence of such credible tests and findings, instability cannot be alleged and established. In Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent has also noted the case of the petitioner, with reference to the materials placed on record, that similar vehicles with same measurements are operating on the road. 12. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent constituted an inspection team to inspect the petitioner's vehicle and to submit a report regarding its stability. The inspection team so constituted submitted a report dated 17.8.2017 before the 1st respondent on 21.8.2017. After considering the report of the inspection team, the 1st respondent by Ext.P4 order dated 22.8.2017 rejected the application made by the petitioner for registration, under Section 45 of the MV Act, on the ground that the vehicle has violated Section 52(1) of the said Act, Rule 126 of the CMV Rules, Rule 261 and Rule 302 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for brevity, 'the KMV Rules') and also Circular No.07/2006 issued by the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner. 13. In Ext.P4 order the 1st respondent found that, the overall height of the vehicle found on physical measurement as 3420 mm exceeds its overall height of 2420 mm stipulated by ARAI under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. The 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner has issued Circular No.7/2006 to ensure that the body of the vehicle is built in strict compliance with the specification given by the manufacturer and the body built on the petitioner's vehicle violates the aforesaid circular. The vehicle has been altered in such a manner exceeding the overall height specified in the prototype approval issued under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules and after an inspection under Rule 103 of the KMV Rules the inspection team has reported that the petitioner's vehicle which has violated Section 51(2) of the MV Act is not at all suitable for use in public place, since it is unstable. By constructing the body with excess dimension than that stipulated in the Type Approval Certificate issued under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules, i.e., with overall height exceeding 2420 mm, the vehicle will have no stability in static as well as in dynamic condition. 14. Challenging Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 57 of the MV Act. 14. Challenging Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent, the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 appeal before the 2nd respondent under Section 57 of the MV Act. The 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 communication, whereby the petitioner was informed that Ext.P2 appeal and Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner are one and the same and that, as per Section 57(2) of the MV Act, there is no provision to reconsider the same matter in a second appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner. The 3rd respondent, vide Ext.P7 communication dated 5.10.2017 directed the 2nd respondent to constitute a team of officers, including Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspectors and Motor Vehicle Inspectors outside Thirurangadi office and re-inspect the vehicle in order to take a final decision in Ext.P5 appeal and to file compliance report within 7 days. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P8 order dated 9.10.2017 constituted a team consisting of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Perinthalmanna and the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Malappuram for re-inspecting the vehicle and to submit a report within 5 days. Subsequent to Ext.P8 order, as directed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner re-submitted Ext.P5 appeal. 15. According to the petitioner, the team constituted vide Ext.P8 order, conducted re-inspection of the vehicle on 17.10.2017, in front of the petitioner's factory premises, by driving it for less than 10 seconds to cover a distance of less than 50 m. Thereafter, even without serving a copy of the report of the inspection, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 order dated 26.10.2017, whereby Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner stands rejected, by upholding Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent. The only reasoning of the 2nd respondent, as contained in Ext.P9 order, for rejecting Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner, reads thus; "On perusal of records and findings of the team constituted by this Authority as per the direction of the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram it is concluded that the vehicle as such is found not fit for registration and hence the appeal is rejected." 16. In Ext.P9 order, the 2nd respondent has extracted the findings of the inspection team in its report dated 23.10.2017, which read thus; "01. The applicant violated Rule 93 of CMV Rules 1989 by constructing body exceeding the overall height specified by ARAI (3130 mm). 02. The vehicle is found unsafe and unstable on test driving. 03. In Ext.P9 order, the 2nd respondent has extracted the findings of the inspection team in its report dated 23.10.2017, which read thus; "01. The applicant violated Rule 93 of CMV Rules 1989 by constructing body exceeding the overall height specified by ARAI (3130 mm). 02. The vehicle is found unsafe and unstable on test driving. 03. Findings of the Additional Registering Authority, Thirurangadi is true and correct, since the body of the vehicle has breached the maximum height laid down in ARAI type approval certificate (3130 mm). 04. The model of the vehicle selected for building the excessively high body doesn't have enhanced safety or stability features such as Anti-roll Bar, ABS, ESC (Electronic Stability Control) or any such device to improve the reduced safety consequent to the excessive height of the constructed body." 17. The Type Approval Certificate issued by ARAI in respect of the prototype of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner is placed on record as Ext.P10. As per Ext.P10, the base model vehicle, i.e., 'Bharat Benz 914R BSIV' falls under the type and category 4x2, Rigid-Goods Carriage-N2'. As per Annexure-II to Ext.P10, the gross vehicle weight of the variant purchased by the petitioner, i.e., 'Bharat Benz 914R BSIV-1' is 9600 kg. and its load carrying capacity has to be verified after body building, i.e., after mounting the cargo box. As per vehicle dimensions provided in Annexure-1 to Ext.P10, the wheel base of the variant 'Bharat Benz 914R BSIV-1' is 3760 mm and its overall width, length and height are 2210 mm, 6985 mm and 2420 mm respectively. The frame overhang as per Annexure-1 is 1275 mm (front) and 1950 mm (rear). In Annexure-1, different overall heights ranging from 2420 mm to 3130 mm are stipulated for the vehicle with a wheel base of 3760 mm. However, vehicles with overall height ranging from 2455 to 3130 have increased overall width ranging from 2255 mm to 2370 mm and overall length ranging from 7195 mm to 7240 mm. 18. As per AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, the Code of Practice for Construction and Approval of Truck Cabs and Truck Bodies, the variant 'Bharat Benz 914R BSIV-1' falls under the category 'cab and chassis'. As per Para.1.2.2.4 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, 'cab and chassis' means an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment that requires only the addition of cargo carrying and load bearing components to perform its intended functions. As per Para.1.2.2.4 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, 'cab and chassis' means an incomplete vehicle, with a completed occupant compartment that requires only the addition of cargo carrying and load bearing components to perform its intended functions. In terms with the said provision, the petitioner mounted an insulated container with a dimension of 4900 mm x 2245 mm x 2375 mm (length x width x height) on the vehicle. Upon mounting the insulated container with refrigeration system the overall height of the vehicle is 3380 mm. 19. The petitioner would contend that, as per Para.3.2.1 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, the overall dimensions of the load body shall comply with the provisions laid down in Rule 93 of the CMV Rules, as amended from time to time. As per clause (i) of Rule 93(4) of CMV Rules, the overall height in the case of a motor vehicle measured from the surface on which the vehicle rests shall not exceed 3.8 m, in the case of a vehicle other than a double-decked transport vehicle. As the overall height of the petitioner's vehicle is only 3380 mm, which is well within the overall height prescribed under clause (i) of Rule 93(4) of the CMV Rules, the petitioner is entitled to have its vehicle registered. Hence the finding of the 2nd respondent in Ext.P9 order cannot be sustained. 20. The petitioner would contend further that, the 2nd respondent rejected Ext.P5 appeal without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, there is violation of the mandatory requirement under sub-section (2) of Section 57 of the MV Act and also the principles of natural justice. It was in such circumstances that, the petitioner has approached this Court in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the 1st respondent and Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent and also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to register the petitioner's vehicle bearing temporary registration No.KL-10/S Temp-4666. 21. Per contra, the 1st respondent would contend that, since the overall height of the petitioner's vehicle exceeds that stipulated in the prototype approval certificate it could no longer have stability in static as well as dynamic condition. The maximum overall height of 3.8 m prescribed under clause (i) of Rule 93(4) of the CMV Rules cannot be permitted in vehicles with smaller dimensions. The maximum overall height of 3.8 m prescribed under clause (i) of Rule 93(4) of the CMV Rules cannot be permitted in vehicles with smaller dimensions. The inspection team which conducted re-inspection of the petitioner's vehicle has reported that the vehicle is unstable and as such the application for registration stands rejected. 22. It is pertinent to note that, the application made by the petitioner for registration was originally rejected by the 1st respondent by Ext.P1 order on the ground that the height of the vehicle is 3380 mm, which exceeds the permissible limit of 2420 mm as specified in ARAI Approval No. AAJ 0077 dated 28.3.2014. In Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 57 of the MV Act, the 2nd respondent set aside Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent, vide Ext.P3 order, whereby the 1st respondent was directed to re-inspect the vehicle and grant registration unless the vehicle is found as unstable, as no violation of the relevant provisions of the MV Act and the rules are found from the records. In Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent appellate authority found that the 1st respondent registering authority proceeded with the matter on a misunderstanding that the cabin height of the chassis noted in ARAI approved vehicle specifications is the maximum overall height of the vehicle that can be allowed after constructing the body, which is not supported by the provisions of the CMV Rules or ARAI approval. The 2nd respondent appellate authority has stated in Ext.P3 order that, the 1st respondent registering authority cannot reject registration alleging violation of overall height on account of increase in total body height than the height of the cabin of the chassis. Now, by Ext.P4 order, the 1st respondent subordinate authority, who is bound to follow the orders of the 2nd respondent appellate authority unreservedly, again rejected the application made by the petitioner for registration mainly on the ground that the overall height of the vehicle found on physical measurement as 3420 mm exceeds the overall height of 2420 mm specified by ARAI under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. 23. In Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 443] the Apex Court held that, the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. Para 6 of the judgment reads thus; “6. 23. In Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. [(1992) Supp (1) SCC 443] the Apex Court held that, the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. Para 6 of the judgment reads thus; “6. Sri.Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri. Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual mala fides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticised this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasised that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the Appellate Authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher Appellate Authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the Appellate Authority is not 'acceptable' to the department in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.” (underline supplied) 24. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws.” (underline supplied) 24. In Ext.P3 order, the 2nd respondent appellate authority noticed that, the 1st respondent registering authority in Ext.P1 order presumed that, with the present overall height the petitioner's vehicle will not have stability while driving on the road. However, from Ext.P1 order and records, it was not clear as to whether the 1st respondent had conducted any stability test on the road to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicle will not have sufficient stability while driving on curves and the reasons or findings thereon are also not found mention in the said order. Therefore, the 2nd respondent concluded in Ext.P3 order that, in the absence of such credible tests and findings, instability cannot be alleged and established. 25. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent constituted an inspection team to inspect the petitioner's vehicle and to submit a report regarding its stability. The inspection team so constituted submitted a report dated 17.8.2017 before the 1st respondent on 21.8.2017. It was after considering the said report of the inspection team that the 1st respondent by Ext.P4 order rejected the application made by the petitioner for registration on the ground that the petitioner's vehicle has violated Section 52(1) of the MV Act, Rule 126 of the CMV Rules, Rule 261 and Rule 302 of the KMV Rules and also Circular No.07/2006 issued by the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner. According to the 1st respondent, after an inspection under Rule 103 of the KMV Rules, the inspection team reported that the petitioner's vehicle is not at all suitable for use in public place since it is unstable. By constructing the body with excess dimension than that stipulated in the Type Approval Certificate issued under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules, i.e., with overall height exceeding 2420 mm, the vehicle will not have stability in static as well as in dynamic condition. 26. A reading of Ext.P4 order would show that, on examination of Ext.P10 Type Approval Certificate issued by ARAI, the 1st respondent noticed that, for 'Bharat Benz 914R BSIV-1' with a wheel base of 3760 mm, the overall height mentioned is 2420 mm. Different overall height ranging from 2420 mm to 3130 mm are stipulated for vehicle with a wheel base of 3760 mm. Different overall height ranging from 2420 mm to 3130 mm are stipulated for vehicle with a wheel base of 3760 mm. However, the overall width and length, which are key factors of stability, has been increased from 6985 mm to 7240 mm and 2210 mm to 2370 mm respectively for those vehicles which have increased overall height. The 1st respondent could not find from the records as to whether the body builder has conducted any test or research for the purpose of ensuring either the safety or stability of such alteration and the stability of the vehicle at critical angle of 23 degrees, which is the primary criteria taken by ARAI during Tilt Table Test [AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, 7.5.1.1 of Code of Practice for Construction and Approval of Truck Cabs and Truck Bodies). 27. As per Para.7.5.1.1 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, the static role over the stability of the vehicle is considered to be passed, if overturning does not occur upto the tilt table angle of 23% for all tests in both (left and right) tilt directions. One consecutive re-test is allowed, if the vehicles fails in one of the three tests for a specific direction. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tilt Table Test referred to in Para.7.5.1.1 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015 falls under Section 7.0 of that code, which deals with working stability of vehicles meant for carriage of 'hazardous goods', which has no application to the petitioner's vehicle. As discernible from Ext.P4 order, despite the findings and observations made by the 2nd respondent appellate authority in Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent registering authority rejected the application for registration even in the absence of any credible tests and findings as to the instability of the petitioner's vehicle. 28. In Jayachandran v. Regional Transport Officer [ 2012 (4) KLT 729 ] a Division Bench of this Court, in the context of Section 52 of the MV Act, Rule 126 of the CMV Rules and Rule 96 of the KMV Rules, held that Rule 26 of the CMV Rules mandates prototype of every motor vehicle being subjected to test and certification by the authorities prescribed therein. But, it does not, for a moment, lead to an inference that the body has to be constructed only within the contours of the measurements given in the Prototype Test Certification. But, it does not, for a moment, lead to an inference that the body has to be constructed only within the contours of the measurements given in the Prototype Test Certification. If such a view is taken, it would render otiose Rule 93 of the CMV Rules, which prescribes the overall dimensions of the motor vehicles. Rule 93 of CMV Rules prescribes the permissible limits of length, breadth and overhang. Such dimensions are prescribed with reference to the axis of the motor vehicle from which the measurements are to be taken. Section 52 of the MV Act also provides for alteration with respect to motor vehicles, however, with due approval by the registering authority. Rule 96 of the KMV Rules provides for inspection of vehicle prior to registration, Rule 103 provides for recording such alteration and Rule 261 provides for body construction on a chassis having approved prototype. Rule 96, by its proviso, provides that in the case of any vehicle, the body of which is not factory built or in a pattern previously approved by the registering authority; when presented for registration, the inspecting authority shall prepare and issue a measurement certificate in Form MC. Such measurement certificate shall also be forwarded to the registering authority. This necessarily involves a consideration by the registering authority as to the road-worthiness and safety of the vehicle and it cannot be a mechanical exercise where it is only verified as to whether the measurements conform to the Prototype Test Certificate. 29. In Jayachandran's case (supra), the Division Bench held further that, sub-rule (2) of Rule 96 of KMV Rules speaks of the inspection and mandates a comparative scrutiny of the particulars contained in the application, with the physical features of the vehicle, and for ascertaining its fitness for use in public place. The proviso specifically enumerates the procedure of inspection with respect to a transport vehicle of which the body is not factory-built or stereo-typed pattern previously approved by the registering authority. The proviso mandates the measurement certificate to be forwarded to the registering authority, which is also insisted upon by sub-rule (2) of Rule 103. Rule 103 also provides for ascertaining the suitability of alteration by the registering authority itself; if found necessary. The proviso mandates the measurement certificate to be forwarded to the registering authority, which is also insisted upon by sub-rule (2) of Rule 103. Rule 103 also provides for ascertaining the suitability of alteration by the registering authority itself; if found necessary. The stipulation in Rule 261 also is to make sound and secure construction of the vehicle, in accordance with the specifications, if any, laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authorities. The Division Bench noticed that, while Part-I of Form 22A is to be issued by the manufacturer, Part-II is to be issued by the body builder. What is contemplated is that the body can be built on a chassis in compliance with the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules framed there under and the safety of such vehicle and its road-worthiness, to be driven with such body built on the chassis, has to be assessed in conformity with the provisions of the MV Act and the Rules by the registering authority. Any specification issued by the State or Regional Transport Authorities also has to be looked into. The registering authority cannot abdicate itself of such authority, which is coupled with a duty to the public at large; relying on the Prototype Test Certification granted under Rule 126 of the CMV Rules. 30. The petitioner challenged Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P5 appeal before the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P7 communication of the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner, the 2nd respondent vide Ext.P8 order constituted an inspection team for reinspecting the petitioner's vehicle and to submit a report. Based on the report of the inspection team, the 2nd respondent appellate authority issued Ext.P9 order, whereby Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner stands rejected. In the writ petition, the specific case of the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 57 of the MV Act and also the principles of natural justice (Ground D) and that, the petitioner has not been furnished with a copy of the report stated to have been filed by the inspection team (Ground F). Though the 1st respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 19.12.2017, the aforesaid averments made in Grounds D and F of the writ petition stand uncontroverted. 31. Though the 1st respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 19.12.2017, the aforesaid averments made in Grounds D and F of the writ petition stand uncontroverted. 31. In Venkitaramanan Potti v. Travancore Devaswom Board [ 1993 (2) KLT 374 ] a Division Bench of this Court held that, an averment in the original petition, which is not traversed by the respondents in the counter affidavit, must be taken to have been admitted. In State of Assam v. Union of India [ (2010) 10 SCC 408 ] the Apex Court held that, the allegation of fact, if not denied or controverted in the counter affidavit, normally it shall be taken to be admitted by the respondents. 32. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the 2nd respondent invoking Section 57(1) of the MV Act, challenging Ext.P4 order of the 1st respondent registering authority. Section 57(2) of the MV Act mandates that, the appellate authority shall give notice of the appeal to the original authority and after giving an opportunity to the original authority and the appellant to be heard in the appeal pass such order as it thinks fit. Once the fact that the 2nd respondent rejected Ext.P5 appeal without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard stands uncontroverted, conclusion is irresistible that Ext.P9 order passed by the appellate authority is one issued in violation of the mandatory requirement under Section 57(2) of the MV Act and also the principles of natural justice. On that sole ground the said order is liable to be set aside. 33. In Ext.P9 order, the 2nd respondent appellate authority, after extracting the findings of the inspection team in its report dated 23.10.2017, rejected Ext.P5 appeal, concluding that the petitioner's vehicle is not fit for registration. The reasoning of the 2nd respondent, as contained in Ext.P9 order, reads thus; "On perusal of records and findings of the team constituted by this Authority as per the direction of the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram it is concluded that the vehicle as such is found not fit for registration and hence the appeal is rejected." 34. The reasoning of the 2nd respondent, as contained in Ext.P9 order, reads thus; "On perusal of records and findings of the team constituted by this Authority as per the direction of the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram it is concluded that the vehicle as such is found not fit for registration and hence the appeal is rejected." 34. In Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union [ (1974) 3 SCC 318 ] the Apex Court, while considering the challenge made against an award under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 held that the giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi judicial authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on the alert and minimise the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfitness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi judicial authorities to the Apex Court by special leave granted under Article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the Court. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 35. The Court will have to wade through the entire record and find for itself whether the decision in appeal is right or wrong. Therefore, the Apex Court emphasised that judicial and quasi judicial authorities should always give the reasons in support of their conclusions. 35. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [ (2010) 4 SCC 785 ] the Apex Court held that, the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction. 36. Ext.P9 order passed by the 2nd respondent appellate authority can be subjected to judicial review invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P9 order of the appellate authority, which is under challenge in this writ petition, virtually makes the judicial review under Article 226 nugatory and ineffective, inasmuch as, such an order passed in a sheer mechanical exercise of power and also on total non-application of mind, will be of little assistance to this Court while conveying the reasoning essential to such a decision. 37. The fact that the petitioner was not informed about the outcome of the inspection conducted by the inspection team on 17.10.2017, till a copy of the said report was produced before this Court along with the memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader dated 17.1.2018, is not in serious dispute. The said memo was filed on 18.1.2018. On the very next day itself, the petitioner has submitted a detailed objection dated 19.1.2018 to the inspection report dated 23.10.2017. 38. The said memo was filed on 18.1.2018. On the very next day itself, the petitioner has submitted a detailed objection dated 19.1.2018 to the inspection report dated 23.10.2017. 38. In the writ petition, the specific case of the petitioner in Para.10 of the writ petition is that, the team constituted by the 2nd respondent conducted re-inspection of the vehicle on 17.10.2017, in front of the petitioner's factory premises, by driving the vehicle for less than 10 seconds to cover a distance of less than 50 m. Thereafter, even without serving a copy of the report of the inspection, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P9 order, whereby Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner stands rejected. Though the 1st respondent has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 19.12.2017, the aforesaid averments made in Para.10 of the writ petition stand uncontroverted. 39. On 25.1.2018, the petitioner has produced a compact disc containing the video clipping of the test conducted by the inspection team on 23.10.2017. On 15.2.2018, an affidavit sworn to by Afsal Ali K., the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Regional Transport Office, Malappuram, who was one among the members of the inspection team, is placed on record, wherein it has been stated that the inspection team reached the petitioner's premises at about 3.30 pm and completed the inspection by 4.30 pm, thereby inspecting the vehicle for about one hour. In the said affidavit it has also been stated that the compact disc produced by the petitioner contains only a part of the inspection process. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit dated 16.2.2018 denying the averments contained in the said affidavit of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. As I have already noticed, the averments made in Para.10 of the writ petition stand uncontroverted in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent dated 19.12.2017. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to make out a case based on the affidavit sworn to by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was one among the members of the inspection team. 40. In such circumstances, the 1st respondent cannot be permitted to make out a case based on the affidavit sworn to by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was one among the members of the inspection team. 40. As per the inspection report dated 23.10.2017, which is placed on record along with a memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader dated 17.1.2018, the inspection team conducted a test for pitching and diving responses of the vehicle in 'no load condition' in closed premises at a speed of 30 kmph and found that pitching and diving is more prominent than that found in similar type of vehicles with lower overall height. As per the report, pitching will be multiplied when the vehicle is carrying permitted load, even within legal speed limits, and that the excessive height of the built up body of the vehicle, which has a high centre of gravity, may definitely cause toppling and associated hazards. As per the report, the inspection team could not test rolling stability as it may risk toppling. 41. The findings in the report of the inspection team are to the effect that the petitioner has violated Rule 93 of CMV Rules by constructing body exceeding the overall height of 3130 mm specified by the ARAI, and that the vehicle was found unsafe and unstable on test driving. The inspection team has also found that the model of the vehicle selected for building the excessively high body doesn't have enhanced safety or stability features such as Anti-roll Bar, ABS, ESC (Electronic Stability Control) or any such device to improve the reduced safety consequent to the excessive height of the constructed body. As per clause (i) of Rule 96(9) of the CMV Rules, N2 category of vehicles other than tractor-trailer combination manufactured on and after the 1st day of October, 2006 meant for carrying hazardous goods and liquid petroleum gas shall be fitted with anti-lock braking system conforming to IS:11852:2003 (Part 9). Admittedly, the petitioner's vehicle is not meant for carrying hazardous goods or liquid petroleum gas. 42. As per Para.3.2.1 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, which deals with Code of Practice for Construction and Approval of Truck Cabs and Truck Bodies, the overall dimensions of the load body shall comply with the provisions of Rule 93 of the CMV Rules, as amended from time to time. 42. As per Para.3.2.1 of AIS-093 (Rev.1):2015, which deals with Code of Practice for Construction and Approval of Truck Cabs and Truck Bodies, the overall dimensions of the load body shall comply with the provisions of Rule 93 of the CMV Rules, as amended from time to time. Typical types of 'closed bodies' available at Page No.41 of the Code of Practice (Figure- 12) would indicate that, depending upon the type of vehicle, the height of the cargo box fitted on a cab and chassis can exceed the height of the cabin. 43. In the writ petition, the 1st respondent registering authority has been impleaded in his personal capacity as the 4th respondent on the allegation that the refusal of registration to the petitioner's vehicle by the said respondent, after granting registration to several other vehicles similarly placed, is vitiated by mala fides. An averment of that effect is made in Ground J of the writ petition. 44. In Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar [ (2003) 4 SCC 579 ] the Apex Court held that, it is not the law that mala fide in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. 45. In Mutha Associates v. State of Maharashtra [ (2013) 14 SCC 304 ] the Apex Court held that, the law regarding pleading and proof of 'malice in fact' or mala fides as it is in common parlance described is indeed settled by a long line of decisions of the Apex Court. The decisions broadly recognise the requirement of allegations suggesting 'malice in fact' to be specific and supported by necessary particulars. Vague and general averments to the effect that the action under review was taken mala fide would not therefore suffice. The decisions broadly recognise the requirement of allegations suggesting 'malice in fact' to be specific and supported by necessary particulars. Vague and general averments to the effect that the action under review was taken mala fide would not therefore suffice. Equally well settled is the principle that the burden to establish that the action under challenge was indeed mala fide rests heavily upon the person making the charge; which is taken as quasi-criminal in nature and can lead to adverse consequence for the person who is proved to have acted mala fide. There is in fact a presumption that the public authority acted bona fide and in good faith. That presumption can no doubt be rebutted by the person making the charge but only on cogent and satisfactory proof whether direct or circumstantial or on admitted facts that may support an inference that the action lacked bona fides and was for that reason vitiated. 46. In the instant case the only allegation in Ground J of the writ petition is that, the refusal of registration to the petitioner's vehicle by the 4th respondent, after granting registration to several other vehicles similarly placed, is vitiated by mala fides. When the burden to establish that the action under challenge was indeed mala fide rests heavily upon the petitioner, the vague and general averments contained in Ground J of the writ petition are not at all sufficient to prove that the action of the 4th respondent lacked bona fides and was for that reason vitiated by mala fides. 47. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent and other registering authorities in the State have already granted registration to similar type of vehicles and as such, the 1st respondent cannot deny registration to the petitioner's vehicle, which would amount to discrimination. 48. In Gurusharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [ (1996) 2 SCC 459 ] the Apex Court held that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. 48. In Gurusharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [ (1996) 2 SCC 459 ] the Apex Court held that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or Court in a negative manner. To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of the Apex Court, that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, so far as such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in an irregular or illegal manner. Such petitioners can question the validity of orders which are said to have been passed in favour of persons who were not entitled to the same, but they cannot claim orders which are sanctioned by law in their favour on principles of equality before law. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination. 49. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination. 49. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent appellate authority and the said authority is directed to reconsider Ext.P5 appeal and pass appropriate orders on the request made by the petitioner for registration of its 'Medium Goods Vehicle' with temporary registration No.KL-10/S-Temp-4666, after inspecting the said vehicle by an inspection team constituted by the 3rd respondent Transport Commissioner consisting of a technically qualified person nominated by the Principal, Sree Chitra Thirunal College of Engineering, Thiruvananthapuram-695018, from among the faculty members in the Mechanical (Automobile) Engineering Department of that College, and two Motor Vehicle Inspectors nominated by the 3rd respondent, out side the office of the 1st respondent Additional Registering Authority. The 3rd respondent shall constitute the inspection team within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The inspection team shall inspect the petitioner's vehicle with due notice to the petitioner and the report of the inspection team shall contain the details of the inspection as to roadworthiness and fitness of the petitioner's vehicle for use in public place. The 2nd respondent shall furnish a copy of such report to the petitioner and it would be open to the petitioner to file objections, if any, to the findings in that report. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent appellate authority shall pass final orders on Ext.P5 appeal, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.