JUDGMENT : The petitioner, who is stated to be a Government Contractor, has purchased a Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab, as per Ext.P1 sale certificate dated 12.06.2018 issued by M/s.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 communication dated 10.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha, whereby Ext.P5 application for registration made by the petitioner for registration of the said vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle stands rejected; and for a declaration that he is entitled to get the vehicle purchased as per Ext.P1 sale certificate registered as 'Construction Equipment Vehicle'. 2. On 25.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. Thereafter, on 30.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to file statement on behalf of the respondents. On 28.12.2018, this Court passed an interim order, extending the validity of the temporary registration till 09.01.2019, based on the averment in the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.1 of 2018, that the temporary registration granted by the 2nd respondent will expire on 29.12.2018. 3. On 03.01.2019, the learned Senior Government Pleader has filed a statement dated 28.12.2018 of the 2nd respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. The petitioner has purchased a Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab, as per Ext.P1 sale certificate dated 12.06.2018. Though in Ext.P1 sale certificate issued in Form 21, by M/s.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., it is certified that one new Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab has been delivered to the petitioner, in the sale certificate the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Construction Equipment, i.e., Heavy Goods Vehicle Construction Equipment. Relying on Ext.P1 sale certificate, it is averred as follows in paragraph 2 of the writ petition; “It is submitted that from Ext.P1, it is crystal clear that the nature and class of the vehicle is HGV Construction Equipment.” 6. Relying on Ext.P1 sale certificate, it is averred as follows in paragraph 2 of the writ petition; “It is submitted that from Ext.P1, it is crystal clear that the nature and class of the vehicle is HGV Construction Equipment.” 6. The vehicle covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate was assigned with the temporary registration 'KL-07-CU-TEMP-5636' by the 3rd respondent Registering Authority, Ernakulam and the document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of temporary certificate of registration dated 14.06.2018 issued in Form C.R.Tem, which was valid from 13.06.2018 to 12.07.2018. In Ext.P3, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Goods Carrier Truck and type of body as Cabin and Chassis. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is averred as follows; “It is submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was issued with a temporary registration by the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that in the temporary registration certificate, a mistake had been crept as to the class of vehicle as the same is described as HGV Goods Vehicle.” 7. After purchase, the vehicle has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump and in order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P2 certificate dated 20.09.2018 (stated to have been issued in Form 22A) by M/s.Putzmeister Concrete Machines Pvt. Ltd. In Ext.P2 it is certified that the vehicle, which has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump, complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder. 8. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is averred that, at no point of time, the vehicle purchased by the petitioner could be treated as a Transport Vehicle and a photograph of the vehicle mounted with Putzmeister Boom Concrete Pump is placed on record as Ext.P4. On 06.10.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application for registration in Form 20, before the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha. In Ext.P5 application, the class of vehicle is shown as 'NTV – HMV -Construction Equipment – Platform Pump Boom' after striking off the words 'HGV – Goods Carrier Truck' and the type of body is shown as 'Cabin and Chassis – Platform Pump Boom'. 9. In Ext.P5 application, the class of vehicle is shown as 'NTV – HMV -Construction Equipment – Platform Pump Boom' after striking off the words 'HGV – Goods Carrier Truck' and the type of body is shown as 'Cabin and Chassis – Platform Pump Boom'. 9. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P6 representation dated 05.10.2018 before the 2nd respondent with a request to register the vehicle as 'Non-Transport Vehicle' with class of vehicle as 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' and type of body as 'Platform Pump Boom'. In the said representation, the petitioner has also stated that he is prepared to remit 'One Time Tax' for the vehicle at the rate applicable to 'Non-Transport Vehicle'. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P7 communication dated 10.10.2018 rejected Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for registration of the vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle, since the class of vehicle as per Ext.P1 sale certificate and Ext.P3 temporary registration is 'Heavy Goods Vehicle', which is a 'Transport Vehicle'. 10. In the statement filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent Registering Authority it is pointed out that, after testing the prototype of the vehicle under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) the vehicle in question is classified as Goods Carriage. As per Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. The vehicle in question is a Tipper Chassis as per Ex.P1 sales certificate issued by the dealer. The user of the vehicle cannot determine the type of the vehicle as specified in the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder. Where the vehicle is manufactured as Goods Carriage, the fact that the owner of the vehicle intends to use it not as Goods Carriage but as Construction Equipment Vehicle by fitting a body adapted for that purpose cannot take away its specification as Goods Carriage vehicle. 11. The 2nd respondent would point out further that, the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate is type approved as 'Category N3' as defined under clause (r) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which means a motor vehicle used for the carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight exceeding 12 tonnes. 11. The 2nd respondent would point out further that, the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate is type approved as 'Category N3' as defined under clause (r) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which means a motor vehicle used for the carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight exceeding 12 tonnes. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Hassan Koya v. Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and another [ 2015 (1) KHC 741 ] the 2nd respondent would contend that a Goods Carriage Chassis mounted with Concrete Pump cannot be registered as a Non-Transport Vehicle. As per the type approval, the vehicle can only be registered as Transport Vehicle and the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 was against the provisions of Notification No.S.O.1284(E) dated 05.11.2004 issued by the Central Government, specifying the type of motor vehicles for the purpose of sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also Circular No.21/2016, dated 24.06.2016 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner to register the vehicle classified as Heavy Goods Vehicle, which is a Transport Vehicle, as a Non-Transport Vehicle was rightly rejected by Ext.P7 communication. 12. As per clause (13) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 'goods' includes livestock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle. Clause (14) of Section 2 of the Act define 'goods carriage' to mean any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. Clause (16) of Section 2 of the Act define 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' to mean any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms. Clause (r) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules define 'Category N3' to mean a motor vehicle used for the carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight exceeding 12 tonnes. 13. Clause (r) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules define 'Category N3' to mean a motor vehicle used for the carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight exceeding 12 tonnes. 13. On the other hand, clause (cab) of Rule (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules [clause (ca) renumbered as clause (cab) with effect from 01.04.2015] define 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' to mean rubber tyred (including pneumatic tyred), rubber padded or steel drum wheel mounted, self-propelled, excavator, loader, backhoe, compactor roller, dumper, motor grader, mobile crane, dozer, fork lift truck, self-loading concrete mixer or any other construction equipment vehicle or combination thereof designed for off-highway operations in mining, industrial undertaking, irrigation and general construction but modified and manufactured with 'on or off' or 'on and off' highway capabilities. As per the Explanation to clause (cab) of Rule (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, a construction equipment vehicle shall be a non-transport vehicle the driving on the road of which is incidental to the main off-highway function and for a short duration at a speed not exceeding 50kms per hour, but such vehicle does not include other purely off-highway construction equipment vehicle designed and adopted for use in any enclosed premises, factory or mine other than road network, not equipped to travel on public roads on their own power. 14. As per sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, an application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government. As per sub-section (3) of Section 41, the registering authority shall issue to the owner of a motor vehicle registered by it a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. As per subsection (4) of Section 41, in addition to the other particulars required to be included in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government may, having regard to the design construction and use of the motor vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. 15. As per subsection (4) of Section 41, in addition to the other particulars required to be included in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government may, having regard to the design construction and use of the motor vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. 15. In exercise of the powers under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Central Government vide notification No.S.O.1284(E) dated 05.11.2004 specified the types of motor vehicles as mentioned in column 1 and 2 of the Table for the purpose of sub-section (4). As per the said notification, Goods Carriage trucks or tankers or Mail Carriers (N1-N3 Category) are classified as Transport Vehicles [Column 1 – Sl.No.(vi)]. As per the said notification, Construction Equipment Vehicles, as defined in clause (ca) of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules [renumbered as Rule 2(cab) with effect from 01.04.2015] are classified as Non-Transport Vehicle [Column 2 – Sl.No.(xiv)]. It has been specified in the said notification that, under Rule 2(cab), use of public road by Construction Equipment Vehicles is incidental to the main off-road function. However, when the public road is being used regularly for carrying on commercial activities, then Construction Equipment Vehicles such as dumpers and excavators being used for such activities, shall be deemed to be Transport Vehicles. 16. Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with special provisions in regard to Transport Vehicles. As pub-section (1) of Section 58, the Central Government may, having regard to the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to the wheels of a transport vehicle (other than a motorcab), and its make and model and other relevant, considerations, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, in relation to each make and model of a transport vehicle, the maximum gross vehicle weight of such vehicle and the maximum safe axle weight of each axle of such vehicle. As per sub-section (2) of Section 58, a Registering Authority, when registering a transport vehicle, other than a motorcab, shall enter in the record of registration and shall also enter in the certificate of registration of the vehicle the following particulars, namely, (a) the unladen weight of the vehicle; (b) the number, nature and size of the tyres attached to each wheel; (c) the gross vehicle weight of the vehicle and the registered axle weights pertaining to the several axles thereof; and (d) if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers solely or in addition to goods, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided, and the owner of the vehicle shall have the same particulars exhibited in the prescribed manner on the vehicle. 17. Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with application for registration of motor vehicles. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 47, an application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made in Form 20 to the Registering Authority within a period of seven days from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding the period of journey and shall be accompanied by the documents enumerated in clauses (a) to (l), which includes sale certificate in Form 21; valid insurance certificate; road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers, Form 22-A from the body builders; etc. 18. In Hassan Koya v. Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and another [ 2015 (1) KHC 741 ], a Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the provisions under Sections 41 and 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, held that, in Form 20, among the particulars that are required to be furnished, Sl.No.12 refers to 'class of vehicle', Sl.No.14 refers to 'type of body', Sl.No.15 refers to 'type of vehicle' and Sl.No.24 refers to 'seating capacity' (including driver). In respect of Transport Vehicles other than motor cab, certain other particulars are also to be specified which, inter alia, includes the number, description, size and ply rating of tyres, as declared by the manufacturer, gross vehicle weight as certified by the manufacturer, maximum axle weight, the dimensions, etc. The application has to be accompanied by sales certificate in Form 21 to be issued by the manufacturer/ dealer. The application has to be accompanied by sales certificate in Form 21 to be issued by the manufacturer/ dealer. In the said form Sl.No.1 refers to 'class of vehicle', Sl.No.9 refers to 'seating capacity'', which includes driver, and Sl.No.14 refers to 'type of body'. Rule 48 indicates that after verification of the documents furnished in terms of Rule 47, the Registering Authority shall issue a certificate of registration in Form 23 or 23A. Form 23 is the certificate of registration, which shall contain various particulars and Sl.No.1 refers to 'class of vehicle', Sl.No.3 'type of body', Sl.No.11 'maker's classification', Sl.No.13 'seating capacity'. Certain additional particulars are to be included in all Transport Vehicles other than motor cabs relating to gross vehicle weight, particulars regarding rating of tyres as declared by manufacturer, axle weight, etc. Therefore it is evident that the class of vehicle is one of the specific particulars to be mentioned in the application for registration, the manufacturer's certificate, as well as registration certificate. 19. In Hassan Koya's case (supra) the Division Bench noticed that, Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules prescribes the parameters and standards which the vehicles have to maintain which, inter alia, includes over all dimension of the vehicle, emission levels, size of tyres, break, gear, windscreen wipers, lights, safety devices, etc. The manufacturers are under obligation to comply with the standards prescribed under the Rules. Rule 126, inter alia, provides that every manufacturer of motor vehicle shall submit the prototype of vehicle for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment, Ministry of Defence or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or such other agencies as recognised by the Government to ensure that they comply with the standards prescribed under the Rules which applies to imported vehicles as well. The Division Bench held that, if a manufacturer classifies the motor vehicle as a goods carriage or goods vehicle, there cannot be any doubt that it is solely constructed or adapted for the carriage of goods. In such an event, the vehicle can only be classified as a goods carriage and therefore a transport vehicle and the Registering Authority has no discretion in the matter. In such an event, the vehicle can only be classified as a goods carriage and therefore a transport vehicle and the Registering Authority has no discretion in the matter. However, it is open for the Central Government to specify by notification in the Official Gazette, to include in the certificate of registration the type of vehicle having regard to the design, construction and use of motor vehicle, as specified under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Every manufacturer has to comply with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the utility of the vehicle depends upon the approved test by the competent agency. After referring to a publication of Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) published in December, 2005 which categorises vehicles into different categories, the Division Bench held that, when a particular model vehicle is certified by an approved agency under Rule 126, the classification has to be made on that basis. If the model of vehicle is categorised as goods vehicle under N1 Category by the manufacturer, the same entry has to come in the registration certificate as well and the said classification cannot be changed. 20. Rule 124 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with safety standards of components. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 124, the Central Government may, from time to time, specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, the standards or the relevant standards specified by the Bureau of Indian Standards of any part, component or assembly to be used in the manufacture of a vehicle including construction equipment vehicle and the date from which such parts, components or assemblies are to be used in the manufacture of such vehicle, and on publication of such notification every manufacturer shall use only such of these parts, components or assemblies in manufacture of the vehicle. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 124, every manufacturer shall get the prototype of the part, component or sub-assembly for which standards have been notified, approved from any agency as referred to in Rule 126 or the Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune, or in case of compliance with notified Indian Standards from any laboratory duly authorised by the Bureau of Indian Standards. On the basis of such approval, every manufacturer shall also certify compliance with the provisions of this rule in Form 22. On the basis of such approval, every manufacturer shall also certify compliance with the provisions of this rule in Form 22. Rule 126 provides that prototype of every motor vehicle be subject to test by the agency specified by the Central Government as to the compliance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Similarly, as per Rule 126B, prototype of every Construction Equipment Vehicle and Combine Harvestor be subject to test by the agency referred to in Rule 126 for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 21. In the instant cases, as per the product brochure of Mahindra Blazo, the manufacturer is having another variant, i.e., 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Boom Pump', which is available with configurations suitable for 36m Boom Pump of M/s.Putzmeister Concrete Machines Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt. Ltd. A comparison of the product specifications of 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Tipper' and 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Boom Pump' would show that the rear suspension of Tipper variant is 'Bell Crank Type' suspension and that of Boom Pump variant is 'Inverted leaf Bogie' suspension. Similarly, the chassis frame of Tipper variant is 285 x 70 x 85 mm thick with reinforcement' and that of Boom Pump variant is 285 x 70 x 85 mm with full length 5 mm reinforcement'. The maximum speed of Tipper variant and Boom Pump variant is 60Km/hr (with speed limiter). The tipper variant is suitable for fitting tipping body of the specified size and the Boom Pump variant is available with configurations suitable for 36m Boom Pump of M/s.Putzmeister and M/s. Schwing Stetter. 22. As per Ext.P1 sale certificate dated 12.06.2018, the petitioner purchased one new Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab. As per the Type Approval Certificate issued by ARAI, the type of the said vehicle is 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' and the category of the vehicle is 'Category N3'. When these facts are not in dispute, the petitioner, who had purchased 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Tipper Chassis', which is a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3', cannot use or register the said vehicle as a 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' after mounting a Boom Concrete Pump on the said vehicle. When these facts are not in dispute, the petitioner, who had purchased 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Tipper Chassis', which is a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3', cannot use or register the said vehicle as a 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' after mounting a Boom Concrete Pump on the said vehicle. The tipper variant of Mahindra Blazo 25 purchased, which is suitable for fitting tipping body of the specified size, has to be used as a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3', as per the Type Approval Certificate issued by ARAI. 23. In Regional Transport Officer and others v. K. Jayachandra and others [2019 SCC OnLine SC 31 : 2019 (1) SCALE 317] the question came up for consideration before the Apex Court was as to the permissible alteration in a motor vehicle in view of the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the effect of Rules 96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules. The validity of Circular No.7/2006 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Kerala to all the Registering Authorities stating that the body of the vehicle constructed in violation of the prototype test certificate and which was not built in strict compliance of the specifications given by the manufacturer are to be denied registration, was also under challenge. After referring to the provisions under Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the provisions under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as originally enacted and later amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000, the Apex Court held that, Section 52 has been amended with the purpose to prohibit alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres of higher capacity, keeping in view road safety and protection of environment. Paragraphs 10 to 13 of the said decision (SCC OnLine) read thus; “10. Section 52 of the Act deals with alteration in the motor vehicle. Prior to that, provision with respect to alteration in motor vehicles was contained in Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 32 of the Act of 1939 is extracted hereunder : 32. Paragraphs 10 to 13 of the said decision (SCC OnLine) read thus; “10. Section 52 of the Act deals with alteration in the motor vehicle. Prior to that, provision with respect to alteration in motor vehicles was contained in Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 32 of the Act of 1939 is extracted hereunder : 32. Alternation in motor vehicle.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate, unless- (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides of the alteration he proposes to make, and (b) he has obtained the approval of the registering authority to make such alteration: Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories if such change does not exceed two percent. of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. (2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or otherwise : Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to change its engine number by replacing the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority. (4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under sub-section (2) or by reason of any change in its engine number without such approval under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein. (5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. (Emphasis supplied) 11. The alteration in a motor vehicle under the parent Act is dealt with in Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 52 as originally enacted is extracted hereunder: 52. Alternation in a motor vehicle.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate, unless.- (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be of the alteration he proposes to make; and (b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration: Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories if such change does not exceed two percent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. Provided further that modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power or any other fuel or source of energy other than liquid petroleum gas shall be treated as an alteration but that shall be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or otherwise : Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to change its engine number by replacing the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority. (4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under subsection (2) or by reason of any change in its engine number without such approval under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein. (5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. (6) No person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle for which approval of the registering authority is required Under Sub-section (1) except with the written consent of the registered owner. (Emphasis supplied) 12. Section 52 has undergone change by way of Amendment Act 27/2000. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act 27/2000 is extracted hereunder : Amendment Act 27 of 2000 -Statement of Objects and Reasons.-The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consolidated and rationalized various laws regulating road transport. The said Act was amended in 1994. 2. Further amendments in the aforesaid Act have become necessary so as to reduce the vehicular pollution and to ensure the safety of the road users. The said Act was amended in 1994. 2. Further amendments in the aforesaid Act have become necessary so as to reduce the vehicular pollution and to ensure the safety of the road users. It is, therefore, proposed to prohibit alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres of higher capacity. However, the alteration of vehicles with a view to facilitating the use of eco-friendly fuel including Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) is being permitted. Further, it is proposed to confer powers on the Central Government to allow the alteration of vehicles for certain specified purposes. 3. At present, the educational institutions are not required to obtain permits for the operation of buses owned by them. It is proposed to bring the buses run by these institutions within the purview of the aforesaid Act by requiring them to obtain permits. 4. It is also proposed to allow renewal of permits, driving licences and registration certificates granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to be renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by inserting new Section 217A. 5. The proposed amendments are essential in the overall interest of securing road safety and maintaining a clean environment. (Emphasis supplied) 13. It is apparent that Section 52 has been amended with the purpose to prohibit alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres of higher capacity, keeping in view road safety and protection of environment. Section 52 has been amended by virtue of Amendment Act 27/2000 in the following manner : 52. (Emphasis supplied) 13. It is apparent that Section 52 has been amended with the purpose to prohibit alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres of higher capacity, keeping in view road safety and protection of environment. Section 52 has been amended by virtue of Amendment Act 27/2000 in the following manner : 52. Alteration in a motor vehicle.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer : Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits; Provided also that the Central Government may grant an exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notifications, and permit any person owning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without the approval of registering authority. (3) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein. (4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. (4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. (5) Subject to the provisions made Under Sub-section (1), (2), (3) and (4), no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, 'alteration' means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in change in its basic feature. (Emphasis supplied) 24. The judgment of the Apex Court in K. Jayachandra's case (supra) arises out of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jayachandran K. and others v. Regional Transport Officer, Trichur and others [ 2012 (4) KHC 684 ] (judgment dated 19.11.2012 W.P.(C) Nos.28702 of 2007, 1323 of 2010, 1468 of 2010 and 274 of 2012). Those writ petitions were referred to the Division Bench in view of the conflict in judgments in W.P.(C) No.29946 of 2006 and W.P.(C) No.8836 of 2007 regarding the issue of alteration. The question before the Division Bench was as to whether alteration is permissible at variance with the manufacturer's specification contained in the prototype test certification. In W.P.(C) No.29946 of 2006 decided on 16.01.2007 the learned Single Judge held that Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules does not fetter the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities to intelligently exercise their discretion in terms of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, in particular Rules 96, 103 and 261; whereas a contrary view was taken by another learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.8836 of 2007 decided on 23.5.2007 and it was observed that alteration in derogation of prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be approved. 25. Before the Division Bench, in W.P.(C) No.29946 of 2006, the unladen weight of the vehicle before alteration was 2315kg. and the same had been increased on alteration to 2715kg. Besides, there were changes in the measurement of the body, which resulted in declining the permission for registration. In W.P.(C) No.8836 of 2007, the length of the chassis of the vehicle as per prototype was 832.5cm. but after building the body it was found to have been extended to 885cm. and the same had been increased on alteration to 2715kg. Besides, there were changes in the measurement of the body, which resulted in declining the permission for registration. In W.P.(C) No.8836 of 2007, the length of the chassis of the vehicle as per prototype was 832.5cm. but after building the body it was found to have been extended to 885cm. W.P.(C) No.28702 of 2007 was for quashing Circular No.7/2006 and also the order passed on 3.7.2007 declining registration to a medium commercial vehicle, on the ground that the platform of the bus was extended by 37 cms. and the body was having an extension of 39 cms. from the extreme rear end of the chassis. W.P.(C) Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468 of 2010 were filed with respect to the denial of registration by the Registering Authorities as the body built over the chassis extended by a length of 15 cms. beyond the chassis, which was not adhering to the specifications given by the manufacturer of the vehicle; W.P.(C) No.274 of 2012 was filed by the owner of the vehicle questioning the denial of registration in view of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and Circular No.7/2006; and W.P.(C) No.274 of 2012 was filed against the refusal to grant registration of a vehicle which was re-modelled as a 'recovery vehicle', altered in an unauthorised manner, by cutting the chassis of the vehicle by one feet at the rear end, which was not in conformity with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 26. The Division Bench of this Court, by a common judgment dated 19.11.2012 [which was under challenge before the Apex Court in K. Jayachandra's case (supra)] held that Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles 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. If such a view is taken, it would render otiose Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which prescribes the overall dimensions of the motor vehicles. Rule 93 prescribes the permissible limits of length, breadth and overhang. If such a view is taken, it would render otiose Rule 93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which prescribes the overall dimensions of the motor vehicles. Rule 93 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 Motor Vehicles Act also provides for alteration with respect to motor vehicles, however, with due approval by the registering authority. Rule 96 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles 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. 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 thereunder 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 Motor Vehicles 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 Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 27. 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 Central Motor Vehicles Rules. 27. However, in K. Jayachandra's case (supra) the Apex Court held that, the very object of the amendment of subsection (1) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000 is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyres of higher capacity. The amended sub-section (1) of Section 52 has specified the extent to which vehicle cannot be altered. A reading of the provisions makes it clear that no vehicle can be altered in a manner where particulars in the certificate of registration are at variance with those 'originally specified by the manufacturer'. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 52 permits modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, etc., such modification is permissible to be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 52 empowers the Central Government to prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other related matters for such conversion kits. The Central Government has power to grant an exemption for alteration of vehicles for any specific purpose. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 authorises a State Government to issue a notification and permit any person owning not less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the 'engine' with an engine of the same make and type, without the approval of the Registering Authority. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 provides that where the alteration has been made without the approval of the Registering Authority, obviously the one which is permissible in the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle has to report the same within 14 days to make an entry in the particulars of the registration. The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (5) have to be read harmoniously. The Explanation to Section 52 says that 'alteration' means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. The provisions of sub-sections (2) to (5) have to be read harmoniously. The Explanation to Section 52 says that 'alteration' means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. The alterations which do not change the basic features are outside the purview of alteration. The object and the clear intent of the amended Section 52 is that the vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those 'originally specified by the manufacturer'. 28. In K. Jayachandra's case (supra), after referring to the provisions under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which deals with sale certificate to be issued in Form 21 and Rule 48 of the said Rules, which deals with certificate of registration, the Apex Court held further that, the vehicle has to comply with the provisions of the Rules contained in Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules as provided in sub-rule (1) of Rule 92, which has to be read as subservient to the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and what is prohibited therein, to allow the same is not the intendment of the Rules contained in the Chapter. Various provisions in Chapter V are additional safeguards to what is prohibited in sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act, that is to say, what has been specified originally by the manufacturers and once that has been entered in the particulars in the certificate of registration, cannot be varied. No vehicle can be altered so as to change original specification made by manufacturer. Such particulars cannot be altered which have been specified by the manufacturer for the purpose of entry in the certificate of registration. It is provided in Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules that prototype of every type of vehicle is subject to test. The provisions of Rule 126 intend for fitness of vehicle to be plied on the road by the agencies which are specified therein. Approval and certification of motor vehicles for compliance to these Rules shall be in accordance with the AIS: 017-2000. Rule 93 deals with overall dimensions of the motor vehicles such as width, length, height, overhang, etc. The provisions of Rule 126 intend for fitness of vehicle to be plied on the road by the agencies which are specified therein. Approval and certification of motor vehicles for compliance to these Rules shall be in accordance with the AIS: 017-2000. Rule 93 deals with overall dimensions of the motor vehicles such as width, length, height, overhang, etc. No doubt about it that the vehicle has to be in conformity with the Rules also, but Rules cannot be so interpreted so as to permit the alteration as prohibited under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act. The alteration under the Rules is permissible except as prohibited by Section 52. The specification of the Rules would hold good with respect to the matters as not specifically covered under sub-section (1) of Section 52 and not specified therein by manufacturer. The emphasis of sub-section (1) of Section 52 is not to vary the 'original specifications by the manufacturer'. Remaining particulars in a certificate of registration can be modified and changed and can be noted in the certificate of registration as provided in sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 52 of the Act and the Rules. Under sub-section (5) of Section 52 of the Act, in case a person is holding a vehicle on a hire purchase agreement, he shall not make any alteration except with the written consent of the original owner. Accordingly, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court holding that, the Rules are subservient to the provisions of the Act and the particulars in certificate of registration can also be changed except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer. Circular No.7/2006 is also to be read in that spirit and the authorities have to act accordingly. 29. In Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [ (2012) 5 SCC 321 ], after referring to the provisions under Rules 100, 104, 104A, 106, 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the Apex Court held that the Rules deal with every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle. In other words, the standards, sizes and specifications which the manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under the Rules. In other words, the standards, sizes and specifications which the manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under the Rules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for. The provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only the appropriate manner of construction and maintenance of vehicle, but also the safety of other users of the road. The Apex Court held further that, the legislative intent attaching due significance to the 'public safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the MV Act, 1988, the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the rules framed thereunder. 30. In K. Jayachandra's case (supra), after referring to the law laid down in Avishek Goenka's case (supra), the Apex Court held that the court should give an interpretation of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules which would serve the legislative intent and the object of framing such Rules, in preference to the one which would defeat the very purpose of enacting the Rules as well as undermining the public safety and interest. The Rules deal in minute details with the construction and maintenance of the vehicle. The Rules also deal with the safety of other users on the road. If some individual interest is likely to suffer, such individual interest must give way to the larger public interest. 31. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Jayachandra's case (supra) no alteration is permissible in a motor vehicle at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification. The very object of the amendment of sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000 is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyres of higher capacity. The amended sub-section (1) of Section 52 has specified the extent to which vehicle cannot be altered. The emphasis of sub-section (1) of Section 52 is not to vary the 'original specifications by the manufacturer'. The amended sub-section (1) of Section 52 has specified the extent to which vehicle cannot be altered. The emphasis of sub-section (1) of Section 52 is not to vary the 'original specifications by the manufacturer'. Remaining particulars in a certificate of registration can be modified and changed and can be noted in the certificate of registration as provided in sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 52 of the Act and the Rules. The object and the clear intent of the amended Section 52 is that the vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those 'originally specified by the manufacturer'. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 52 permits modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, etc., such modification is permissible to be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. 32. As already noticed, the prototype approval for Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab purchased by the petitioner as per Ext.P1 sale certificate dated 12.06.2018 is as 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3'. As per the product brochure of Mahindra Blazo, the manufacturer is having different variants of the said model, with different technical specifications and configurations, meant for different applications. 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Tipper' variant purchased by the petitioner is suitable for fitting tipping body of the specified size. Another variant of Mahindra Blazo, i.e., 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Boom Pump', is available with configurations suitable for 36m Boom Pump of M/s.Putzmeister and M/s. Schwing Stetter. A comparison of the product specifications of both variants would show that the rear suspension of Tipper variant is 'Bell Crank Type' suspension and that of Boom Pump variant is 'Inverted leaf Bogie' suspension. Similarly, the chassis frame of Tipper variant is 285 x 70 x 85 mm thick with reinforcement' and that of Boom Pump variant is 285 x 70 x 85 mm with full length 5 mm reinforcement'. The maximum speed of Tipper variant and Boom Pump variant is 60Km/hr (with speed limiter). It is pertinent to note that, as per the Explanation to clause (cab) of Rule (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the speed of a Construction Equipment Vehicle shall not exceed 50kms per hour. 33. The maximum speed of Tipper variant and Boom Pump variant is 60Km/hr (with speed limiter). It is pertinent to note that, as per the Explanation to clause (cab) of Rule (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the speed of a Construction Equipment Vehicle shall not exceed 50kms per hour. 33. It is not in dispute that 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Tipper Chassis' purchased by the petitioner is a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3', as per the Type Approval Certificate issued by ARAI. The said variant, which is suitable for fitting tipping body of the specified size, has to be used as a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3'. As per the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Goods Carriage trucks or tankers or Mail Carriers (N1-N3 Category) are classified as 'Transport Vehicles'. Altering the said vehicle at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification, it cannot be used or registered as a 'Construction Equipment Vehicle', after mounting a Boom Concrete Pump, and classifying the vehicle as 'Non-Transport Vehicle'. Therefore, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P7 communication dated 10.10.2018 rightly rejected Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner for registration of the said vehicle as 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' under the class 'Non-Transport Vehicle'. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.