JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner, who is a Government Contractor engaged in the construction field, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 show-cause notice dated 02.05.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha. He has also sought for an order directing the respondents not to seize the vehicle registered as KL-17/T-1615 pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice; and a writ of mandamus compelling the 2nd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice, only after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. 2. On 10.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the respondents, who was directed to get instructions. While listing the matter on 14.05.2019, this Court ordered that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice shall be kept in abeyance till then. The said interim order, which was extended for a period of two weeks on 14.05.2019, expired on 28.05.2019. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, 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, who purchased a Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab, as per sale certificate dated 12.06.2018 issued by M/s.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.34775 of 2018 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 communication dated 10.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, whereby Ext.P3 application made for registration of the said vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle stands rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that he is entitled to get the said vehicle registered as 'construction equipment vehicle'. 6. The vehicle was assigned with the temporary registration 'KL-07-CU-TEMP-5636' by the 3rd respondent Registering Authority at Ernakulam, as per Ext.P2 temporary certificate of registration dated 14.06.2018, which was valid from 13.06.2018 to 12.07.2018. In Ext.P2, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Goods Carrier Truck and type of body as Cabin and Chassis. In paragraph 3 of W.P.(C).No.34775 of 2018, the petitioner contended 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. In Ext.P2, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Goods Carrier Truck and type of body as Cabin and Chassis. In paragraph 3 of W.P.(C).No.34775 of 2018, the petitioner contended 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 covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump by M/s.Putzmeister Concrete Machines Pvt. Ltd. In Ext.P2 certificate dated 20.09.2018 (stated to have been issued in Form 22A) 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. On 06.10.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for registration in Form 20, before the 2nd respondent Registering Authority. In Ext.P3 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'. The 2nd respondent, by Ext.P4 communication dated 10.10.2018 rejected Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner for registration of the vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle, since the class of vehicle as per the sale certificate and Ext.P2 temporary registration is 'Heavy Goods Carrier Truck' (Heavy Goods Vehicle), which is a 'Transport Vehicle'. 9. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 15.01.2019 -Raju Chacko v. State of Kerala and others [ 2019 (1) KLT 668 ] -this Court dismissed W.P.(C).No.34775 of 2018, holding that, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer and others v. K. Jayachandra and others [ (2019) 3 SCC 722 : 2019 (1) SCALE 317 ] 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 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 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'. This Court held further that, as per the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under subsection (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 communication dated 10.10.2018 (Ext.P4) rightly rejected the application (Ext.P3) made by the petitioner for registration of the said vehicle as 'Construction Equipment Vehicle' under the class 'Non-Transport Vehicle'. Paragraphs 31 to 33 and also the last paragraph of the said decision read thus; “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.” 10. 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, 1989 which provides for sale certificate 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. 11. In K. Jayachandra's case (supra) the Apex Court held further that, as per Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, prototype of every type of vehicle is subject to test. The provisions of Rule 126 are intended 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 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 the 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. 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 in Jayachandran K. and others v. Regional Transport Officer, Trichur and others [ 2012 (4) KHC 684 ], 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. 12. As noticed by this Court in Raju Chacko's case (supra), 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. 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. 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, forklift 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. 13. 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 sub-section (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. As per sub-section (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. 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. 14. 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 Section 41 (which deals with registration of motor vehicles) and Section 58 (which deals with special provisions in regard to Transport Vehicles) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 47 (which deals with application for registration of motor vehicles) 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. 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. 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. 15. 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 overall dimension of the vehicle, emission levels, size of tyres, brake, 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. 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. 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. 16. Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with brakes. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 96, every motor vehicle, other than a motor cycle, three-wheeled invalid carriage, trailer or a road roller shall be equipped with two independent and efficient braking systems, namely, the parking brake and foot operated service brake. As per the proviso to sub-rule (1), a motor cycle and three-wheeled invalid carriage shall be equipped with the independent and efficient braking systems, either both hand operated or one foot operated and the other hand operated. As per sub-rule (2), the braking system shall be of strength capable of stopping the vehicle within the distance specified in sub-rule (8) and of holding it at rest in all conditions and all such brakes at all time be properly connected and maintained in efficient condition. 17. On the other hand, Rule 96A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, inserted with effect from 28.07.2000, deals with brakes for construction equipment vehicle. 17. On the other hand, Rule 96A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, inserted with effect from 28.07.2000, deals with brakes for construction equipment vehicle. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 96A, construction equipment vehicle with hydrostatic transmission shall employ either hand or foot operated hydrostatic braking system both for service and parking brake system acting at least on two wheels on the same axle or drum. As per sub-rule (2), the braking system shall be of a strength capable of stopping the vehicle within the distance specified in sub-rule (8) and of holding it at rest in all conditions, and all such brakes shall at all times be properly conducted and maintained in efficient condition. As per sub-rule (4) of Rule 96A, every construction equipment vehicle manufactured on or after the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2000, shall have a braking system whose performance shall conform to the test and stopping distance formula as specified in sub-rule (7). Sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, substituted by G.S.R. 116(E) dated 27.02.2002, with effect from 27.08.2002, reads thus; “(7) The service braking system of the construction equipment vehicle shall be capable of bringing the vehicle to a halt within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below, when tested in unladen condition and attachment carry position at a speed corresponding to 80 per cent, of the design maximum speed. The test shall be conducted in the forward direction of travel on a dry level hard road in good condition and during the test the acceleration control or travel shall be fully released and in the case of vehicle with manual gear shifting control, the top gear and the clutch shall be engaged. STOPPING DISTANCE FORMULA S -0.15v + (V²/130), Where S is the Stopping distance in metres, V is the test speed corresponding to 80% of design maximum speed in Km/h., Control force F -700 Newtons. Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-rule, 'unladen' means the construction equipment vehicle in travel mode without any load except the driver and another person for the specific purpose of supervising the test and the instruments, if any: Provided that while the stopping distance formula mentioned above remain unchanged, the construction equipment using hydrostatic transmission, the brake test shall be performed by positioning the gear change lever to the neutral position.” 18. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, no person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V. As per Explanation to Rule 92, for the purposes of this rule, 'motor vehicle' includes construction equipment vehicle. Sub-rule (1A) of Rule 93 deals with measurement of the overall width of a construction equipment vehicle; and sub-rule (3A) deals with measurement of the overall length of the construction equipment vehicle. As per sub-rule (7A), no part of the construction equipment vehicle in travel mode other than a direction indicator, or a driving mirror, shall project laterally more than 300 millimetres beyond the extreme outer edge of the tyres or wheel drums regardless of single or dual tyres or rollers. 19. Rule 94 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with conditions of tyres and Rule 95 deals with size and ply rating of tyres. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 95, the tyres including radial tyres used on all motor vehicles manufactured or imported on and after the 1st day of April, 2006, other than agricultural tractors, construction equipment vehicles and power tillers shall comply with the requirements specified in IS:15627-2005 or IS:15633-2005 or IS:15633-2005 applicable. As per sub-rule (2A) of Rule 95, the size of the tyres of a construction equipment vehicle specified in column (1) of the Table below the said sub-rule shall have a ply rating specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table in respect of maximum weight permitted to be carried by such tyre specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof. As per the proviso to sub-rule (2A), the maximum safe load for single axle with two or more tyres shall not exceed 10.2 tonnes. 20. The Table below sub-rule (2A) of Rule 95 specify the ply rating of the tyre of a construction equipment vehicle and the maximum weight permitted to be carried by such tyre. As per the proviso to sub-rule (2A), the maximum safe load for single axle with two or more tyres shall not exceed 10.2 tonnes. 20. The Table below sub-rule (2A) of Rule 95 specify the ply rating of the tyre of a construction equipment vehicle and the maximum weight permitted to be carried by such tyre. As per Note (1), the load rating for tyres not covered by the above Table may be notified by the Central Government as and when such tyres are introduced on construction equipment vehicles, and until these are notified, the provisional load rating declared by the construction equipment vehicle manufacturer may be certified by the certifying test agency referred to in Rule 126. As per Note (2), the maximum axle loading capacities shall be verified based on the safe loading capacities of the tyres. In cases where the axle load exceed 10.2 tonnes, the vehicle manufacturer shall ask the user to seek the prior permission of the concerned Regional or State Transport Authorities in whose jurisdiction the construction equipment vehicle is expected to ply depending upon the conditions of roads/bridges, where deemed fit. Such construction equipment vehicles whose axle load exceeds 10.2 tonnes shall display permanently on the vehicle a placard indicating 'NOT FOR PLYING ON ROADS'. These conditions shall be mentioned in the certificate, issued by the testing agencies referred to in Rule 126, where the axle load exceeds 10.2 tonnes. 21. Rule 98 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with steering gears of motor vehicles; and Rule 98A deals with steering gears for construction equipment vehicles. Rule 104 deals with fitment of reflectors on motor vehicles; and Rule 104A deals with fitment of reflectors on construction equipment vehicles and combine harvesters. Rule 107A deals with impediment lights for construction equipment vehicle; and Rule 108A deals with use of red or white light on construction equipment vehicles and combine harvesters. Rule 115 deals with emission of smoke, vapour, etc. from motor vehicles; and Rule 115A deals with emission of smoke and vapour from agricultural tractors, power trillers, construction equipment vehicles and combine harvesters driven by diesel engines. Rule 125 deals with safety belt, collapsible steering column, auto dipper and padded dash boards for every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three-wheelers; and Rule 125A deals with safety belt, etc., for construction equipment vehicles. 22. Rule 125 deals with safety belt, collapsible steering column, auto dipper and padded dash boards for every motor vehicle other than motor cycles and three-wheelers; and Rule 125A deals with safety belt, etc., for construction equipment vehicles. 22. As noticed by this Court in Raju Chacko's case (supra), 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 subassembly 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. 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. 23. 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. 23. 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. 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 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the provisions of the said Act and more particularly, the Rules framed thereunder. 24. 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. 25. Rules 93(1A), 93(3A), 93(7A), 95A, 96A, 98A, 104A, 107A, 108A, 115A, 125A, 126B, etc. of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deal with every minute detail of the construction and maintenance of a construction equipment vehicle. If some individual interest is likely to suffer, such individual interest must give way to the larger public interest. 25. Rules 93(1A), 93(3A), 93(7A), 95A, 96A, 98A, 104A, 107A, 108A, 115A, 125A, 126B, etc. of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deal with every minute detail of the construction and maintenance of a construction equipment vehicle. Rule 96A specify the size and ply rating of the tyre of a construction equipment vehicle and the maximum weight permitted to be carried by such tyre; Rule 98A deals with steering gears for construction equipment vehicle; etc. Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deals with prototype approval of construction equipment vehicle and combine harvester. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 126B, on and from the date of commencement of the Central Motor Vehicles (Sixth Amendment) Rules, 2000, every manufacturer of construction equipment vehicle shall submit the prototype of the construction equipment vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by any of the agencies referred to in Rule 126 for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 126B, the testing agencies referred to in Rule 126 shall in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Central Government conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the production line of the manufacturer to verify whether the vehicles conform to the provisions of the Act, or rules or orders issued thereunder. As per the proviso, sub-rule (2) shall not be applicable in respect of any construction equipment up to and including 26th August, 2002. 26. The provisions under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules referred to hereinbefore would make it clear that the statutory requirements for a construction equipment vehicle is entirely different from that of a motor vehicle. The braking system of a construction equipment vehicle shall be capable of bringing the vehicle to a hold within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A. On the other hand, the braking system of other motor vehicles, including a heavy goods vehicle purchased by the petitioner, covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration, shall be of the strength capable of stopping the vehicle within the distance specified in sub-rule (8) of Rule 96. On the other hand, the braking system of other motor vehicles, including a heavy goods vehicle purchased by the petitioner, covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration, shall be of the strength capable of stopping the vehicle within the distance specified in sub-rule (8) of Rule 96. A comparison of the stopping distance formula in Rule 96A, which is applicable for a construction equipment vehicle, and the braking distance for other motor vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles, specified in the table below sub-rule (8) of Rule 96, would make it explicitly clear that no vehicle other than a vehicle which meets the specifications prescribed in sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, i.e., a vehicle which is not fitted with a braking system capable of bringing the same to a hold within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, can be permitted to be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. 27. The provisions under Rule 95 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules would also show that the size and ply rating of tyres used on motor vehicles including heavy goods vehicles and that of tyres used in construction equipment vehicle are entirely different. In the matter of prototype approval, a construction equipment vehicle is governed by the provisions under Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and as per the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 126B, the testing agencies referred to in Rule 126 shall, in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Central Government, conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the production line of the manufacturer to verify whether the vehicles conform to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act or rules or orders issued thereunder. Therefore, a motor vehicle, which has not obtained prototype approval under Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, cannot be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. Moreover, in view of the amended provisions of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000, there is prohibition in the alteration of a motor vehicle by varying the original specifications provided by the manufacturer. Moreover, in view of the amended provisions of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000, there is prohibition in the alteration of a motor vehicle by varying the original specifications provided by the manufacturer. As held by the Apex Court in K.Jayachandra's case (supra), sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after its amendment by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000, prohibits alteration of a vehicle, including the change of tyres of a higher capacity. 28. A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent would show that, after Ext.P5 judgment of this Court dated 15.01.2019 in W.P.(C)No.34775 of 2018, the 2nd respondent granted permanent registration to the petitioner's vehicle covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration on 20.02.2019, as 'Transport Vehicle (HGV – Goods Carriage – Tipper)', by Ext.P9 order dated 20.02.2019. Based on that order, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 certificate of registration, assigning the registration mark KL-17/T-1615. In Ext.P6, the class of vehicle is 'HGV -Multi Axle Tipper' and the type of body is 'Concrete Pump Boom'. In Ext.P5 judgment, this Court held 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'. 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'. 29. The circumstances in which the 2nd respondent granted Ext.P6 permanent registration to the vehicle covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration, which is fitted with a construction equipment, i.e., Boom Concrete Pump, as 'HGV Multi Axle Tipper' with type of body as 'Concrete Pump Boom', are not discernible from Ext.P9 proceedings dated 20.02.2019. 29. The circumstances in which the 2nd respondent granted Ext.P6 permanent registration to the vehicle covered by Ext.P2 temporary registration, which is fitted with a construction equipment, i.e., Boom Concrete Pump, as 'HGV Multi Axle Tipper' with type of body as 'Concrete Pump Boom', are not discernible from Ext.P9 proceedings dated 20.02.2019. The 2nd respondent granted such registration, ignoring the specific finding of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment that the said vehicle, which is a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3', which is suitable for fitting tipping body of the specified size, cannot be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle', after mounting a Boom Concrete Pump, and classifying the vehicle as 'Non-Transport Vehicle', thereby altering the said vehicle at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification. 30. In Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C)No.34775 of 2018 this Court noticed that, 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. On a comparison of the product specifications of 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Tipper' and 'Mahindra Blazo 25 Boom Pump', this Court noticed 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'. 31. In Ext.P2 temporary registration certificate, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Goods Carrier Truck and type of body as Cabin and Chassis. As already noticed, in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.34775 of 2018, the petitioner contended 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. As already noticed, in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts in W.P.(C)No.34775 of 2018, the petitioner contended 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. On 06.10.2018, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application for registration in Form 20 before the 2nd respondent, in which the class of vehicle is falsely shown as 'NTV – HMV -Construction Equipment – Platform Pump Boom' after striking off the words 'HGV – Goods Carrier Truck' and the type of body as 'Cabin and Chassis – Platform Pump Boom', at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification. Based on that application, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P9 order dated 20.02.2019 granted permanent registration to that vehicle as 'Transport Vehicle (HGV – Goods Carriage – Tipper)', and issued Ext.P6 certificate of registration, with the class of vehicle as 'HGV -Multi Axle Tipper' and the type of body as 'Concrete Pump Boom'. 32. Now, as evident from Ext.P7 show-cause notice dated 02.05.2019 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has been directed to show cause, within 14 days from the date of receipt of that notice, why Ext.P6 certificate of registration should not be cancelled under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On receipt of that notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply dated 09.05.2019. The 2nd respondent granted permanent registration to the petitioner's vehicle, based on Ext.P3 application for registration, in which the class of vehicle is falsely shown as 'NTV – HMV -Construction Equipment – Platform Pump Boom' after striking off the words 'HGV – Goods Carrier Truck' and the type of body as 'Cabin and Chassis – Platform Pump Boom', at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification. In view of the specific finding of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in W.P.(C)No.34775 of 2018, the said vehicle, which is a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' under 'Category N3', which is suitable for fitting tipping body of the specified size, cannot be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle', after mounting a Boom Concrete Pump, and classifying the vehicle as 'Non-Transport Vehicle', thereby altering the said vehicle at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification. The said vehicle can only be used as 'Transport Vehicle (HGV – Goods Carriage – Tipper)' after fitting tipping body of the specified size. The said vehicle cannot be mounted with Boom Concrete Pump or any other construction equipment. 33. It is pertinent to note that, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued communication No.RT-11036/06/2019-MVL dated 28.02.2019, addressed to the Principal Secretaries/Secretaries, Department of Transport of all States and Union Territory Administrations and also to the Transport Commissioners of all the States/Union Territory Administrations on the subject 'alterations in motor vehicles', wherein it has been stated that, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Jayachandra's case (supra), the particulars in the certificate of registration cannot be changed except to the extent of entries made in the same as per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer. A motor vehicle, modified by incorporating optional components offered by its manufacturer or otherwise modified so that it continues to comply with the manufacturer's specifications, may not require further certification. In the said communication, the Ministry has prescribed that the modifications that can be carried out by the vehicle owner and would not entail further certifications are: (a) Replacement of parts or components by the identical parts or components. (b) Replacement parts or components with parts or components with equivalent functional performance. (c) Optional parts or components as prescribed by the vehicle's manufacturer. (d) Following alterations are permissible in the motor vehicles, subject to the conditions mentioned below: Sr. No. Changes of parameter Subject to compliance of the following 1 Seats A. Lateral/Side facing seat fitment or alteration in 4 Wheelers B. Deletion of seats* 1. Vehicle Weight after the alteration/changes not to exceed the permissible Gross Vehicle Weight. 2. Seating capacity to remain within the same motor vehicle category. 3. Seating dimensions as per prescribed specifications. 4. Seats fitted should not obstruct other occupant(s). 5. Folding seats, if fitted, should have auto lock in both used /unused position. 6. Such seats shall be fitted in rows other than 1st row of the driver. 7. Such fitments shall not obstruct ingress and egress. 3. Seating dimensions as per prescribed specifications. 4. Seats fitted should not obstruct other occupant(s). 5. Folding seats, if fitted, should have auto lock in both used /unused position. 6. Such seats shall be fitted in rows other than 1st row of the driver. 7. Such fitments shall not obstruct ingress and egress. 2 Soft Top to Hard Top or vice versa in L-5 and M-1 vehicles (L-5 means three-wheeled motor vehicle, and M-1 means a motor vehicle for carriage of passengers, comprising not more than eight seats in addition to driver's seat.) 3 Side door or bars in passenger area of L5M on right hand side of driver. [(L5-M three wheeled passenger carrier (Auto-Rickshaw)] * No reduction in State / Centre Tax Subject to above, the vehicle owner is not required to get the permissible alterations, as mentioned above, recorded in the certification of registration. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has made clear in its communication dated 28.02.2019 that, the States may take necessary action against other unauthorised modification on the motor vehicles. 34. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has made an application dated 17.06.2019 before the 2nd respondent, after remitting a fee of Rs.750/-, vide cash receipt No.9211774 dated 17.06.2019, seeking permission to remove 'Concrete Pump Boom' from his vehicle covered by Ext.P6 certificate of registration and to fit 'tipping body', in order to use the said vehicle as a tipper. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, any request made by the petitioner to remove 'Concrete Pump Boom' from the vehicle in question and to fit 'tipping body' of the specified size, in order to use the said vehicle as a tipper, as per the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification, shall be considered by the 2nd respondent, in accordance with law, while finalising the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice. 35. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 no person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V, which deals with construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. 35. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 92 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 no person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V, which deals with construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 249 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides that no person shall use and no person shall cause or allow to be used or to be in any public place any motor vehicle which does not comply with the rules contained in Chapter VII (which deals with construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles) or with any order thereunder made by the competent authority. Similarly, Regulation 3 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 which deals with duty towards other road users and general public, provides that no vehicle shall be driven, stopped or parked on a road or in a public place in such a manner as is likely to endanger the safety of or cause inconvenience to other road users. 36. As already held, a motor vehicle which has not obtained prototype approval under Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. Therefore, no vehicle other than a vehicle which meets the specifications prescribed in sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, i.e., a vehicle which is fitted with a braking system capable of bringing the same to a hold within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, can be permitted to be used or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle'. The petitioner's vehicle covered by Ext.P6 certificate of registration, which is fitted with a Boom Concrete Pump (instead to a tipping body of the specified size) by altering the said vehicle at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification, is a motor vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, and the use of such a vehicle on public place is likely to endanger the safety of other road users. 37. 37. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, I find absolutely no grounds to interfere with Ext.P7 show-cause notice dated 09.05.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent or to restrain the respondents from seizing the petitioner's vehicle covered by Ext.P6 certificate of registration, with registration No.KL-17/T-1615, which cannot be used in any public place, after mounting a Boom Concrete Pump. 38. In the result, this writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue, in accordance with law, the application dated 17.06.2019 seeking permission to remove 'Concrete Pump Boom' from his vehicle covered by Ext.P6 certificate of registration and to fit 'tipping body' of the specified size, in order to use the said vehicle as a tipper, as per the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification. The 2nd respondent shall consider any such request made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment, while finalising the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 show-cause notice, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The additional 4th respondent Transport Commissioner shall take necessary steps to ensure that no motor vehicle, which has not obtained prototype approval under Rule 126B of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, i.e., a vehicle which is not fitted with a braking system capable of bringing the same to a hold within the stopping distance as calculated by the formula given below sub-rule (7) of Rule 96A, is permitted to used on any public place or registered as a 'construction equipment vehicle', at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer of that vehicle, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification, after mounting a 'construction equipment'.