JUDGMENT : K. Vinod Chandran, J: The appeals by the identical appellant arise from two writ petitions, rejected by the learned Single Judge. Both the writ petitions canvassed the very same cause of registration of a goods carriage vehicle as a 'tow truck' and its classification as a 'transport vehicle'. The learned Single Judge followed the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Hassan Koya v. Transport Commissioner [ 2015 (1) KLT 916 ] to reject the contention of the appellant. The appellant contends that the said decision is per incuriam, insofar as not noticing the notification issued by the Central Government, which categorized tow trucks as non-transport vehicles. The learned Single Judge found that the notification produced along with the writ petitions, Exhibits P11 and P12 respectively, enables only a vehicle designed and manufactured as a tow truck to be treated as a non-transport vehicle. It was found that the notification cannot be construed to mean that every vehicle chassis adapted as a tow truck or recovery van would be treated as a non-transport vehicle; without reference to its approved prototype. 2. Learned Counsel Sri.C.S.Manu for appellant contended that the Division Bench decision can be distinguished insofar as it having not noticed the notification of the Central Government. It was contended that in Hassan Koya, the vehicles were goods carriage vehicles intended to be used as private vehicles for which categorization change was sought as a non-transport vehicle. In the present case, there is no body fitted on the vehicle. The appellant has purchased a chassis, on which a body can be built; the body built is in such a way as to use the vehicle as a tow truck and the appellant himself has other vehicles which have been so registered. It is argued that there are many vehicles registered in the State of Kerala, even by the Police Department after making similar adaptation in the chassis purchased from the manufacturer. There is no separate classification of a 'tow truck/recovery van' as per the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['MV Act' for brevity] and in such circumstances, there could be registration of the vehicle after testing the safety of the vehicle when used on the road, which power is with the Registering Authority. 3. It is also argued that Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. 3. It is also argued that Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2017) 14 SCC 663 ] found that a 'light motor vehicle' (LMV) would include a transport vehicle even if it is a goods carriage if it is below the specified gross vehicle weight of 7500 Kgs. The instant vehicles satisfy the said criteria and, hence, the same have to be registered as tow trucks. It is fervently contended that if a view is taken that this would be an alteration which is not permissible, there would be no tow trucks on the roads. 4. Sri.P.Santhoshkumar, learned Special Government Pleader, would contend that the rejection of the registration of the vehicle was precisely on the safety aspects, which has been dealt with elaborately by the original authority and the appellate authority. The specific averments made in the counter affidavits were also pointed out. The learned Special Government Pleader would specifically point to Exhibit R1(g) judgment, wherein an identical conversion of a light motor vehicle goods carriage truck to be registered as a non-transport vehicle considering it as either 'Crane mounted vehicle' [item No. (viii) of the notification] or 'Tow Trucks, Breakdown Van and Recovery Vehicles' [Item No.(xii)] was rejected. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K.Jayachandra [ (2019) 3 SCC 722 ] reversing the Division Bench judgment of this Court was also pointed out. Noticing the 1994 amendment to Section 52 of the MV Act, 1988, it was held 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'. 5. We have to first look at the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan, which was on the question of whether a person holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle if he is driving a transport vehicle. The decision proceeded on the interpretation of Section 10 of the MV Act, which has the nominal heading 'Form and contents of licences to drive'. The various categories of vehicles in Section 10(2) from (f) to (h) were omitted and a single entry of 'transport vehicle' was made at Section 10(2)(e) while retaining 'light motor vehicle' at Section 10(2)(d). The decision proceeded on the interpretation of Section 10 of the MV Act, which has the nominal heading 'Form and contents of licences to drive'. The various categories of vehicles in Section 10(2) from (f) to (h) were omitted and a single entry of 'transport vehicle' was made at Section 10(2)(e) while retaining 'light motor vehicle' at Section 10(2)(d). Looking also at the definitions of the various type of vehicles under Section 2, it was held that a person licensed to drive a 'light motor vehicle' which, as per the definition in Section 2(21), includes a transport vehicle or omni bus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs., there is no requirement for a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. A transport vehicle of gross vehicle weight provided in the definition clause hence can be driven by a person licensed to drive a LMV. This, however, does not deal with categorization as a transport vehicle or a non-transport vehicle. A 'transport vehicle' as per Section 2(47) includes a goods carriage, which the subject vehicle is. Hence, though it is a 'light motor vehicle' by virtue of its classification as a 'goods carriage', it also is a transport vehicle and it cannot be registered as a 'non-transport vehicle' merely on the intention as projected by the purchaser/owner of the vehicle. The decision is only an authority for the proposition that a transport vehicle having gross vehicle weight less than 7,500 kg can be driven by a person having LMV license without separate additional endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Mukund Dewangan, according to us, has no application to the subject matter of these appeals. 6. In this context, we notice the decision of one of us sitting single [K.Vinod Chandran,J.] reported in Shamnad v. Regional Transport Officer [ 2015 (1) KLT 931 ], which also followed Hassan Koya. 7. The CMVR certificate is produced by the appellant himself as Exhibit P2 in both the writ petitions and we notice that both the appeals are concerned with identical make and classification and, hence, we refer to the writ petition from which W.A.No.658 of 2018 arises. Exhibit P2 has the declaration from the manufacturer of the vehicle purchased by the appellant being a variant of 'TATA XENON RX TC WITHOUT LOADBODY BS-III' of the basic model 'TATAXENONRX PICKUP TC BS-III'. Exhibit P2 has the declaration from the manufacturer of the vehicle purchased by the appellant being a variant of 'TATA XENON RX TC WITHOUT LOADBODY BS-III' of the basic model 'TATAXENONRX PICKUP TC BS-III'. The type of vehicle is 'Goods carrier' and the category is 'N1', which is a transport vehicle. The chassis purchased from the dealer as built by the manufacturer is seen at Exhibit P1. It has a driver's cabin with an additional seat and a rear chassis without the body built on it. Obviously a body open or closed has to be built on it, satisfying the safety standards for the carriage of goods over the chassis, in the body constructed on it. 8. The appellant, however, has constructed an open body and mounted cranes on it to enable towing of broken down vehicles by lifting the front or back of the broken down vehicle on to the subject vehicles rear, so as to tow it to the workshop. We have to immediately notice that this is in variance with the prototype design of the manufacturer as approved by the competent authority, which is only for carrying goods over the chassis in the body constructed thereon. 9. We look at the orders passed, which are Exhibits P8 and P12, respectively of the Registering Authority and the Appellate Authority. In Exhibit P8, the Registering Authority has said so: “The body of the vehicle is found extensively altered beyond the limitations stipulated in the prototype approval of the vehicle. The recovery mechanism which consists of cantilever pipe assembly and towing hook projected 470 mm beyond the rearmost end of body. It is also noted that the cantilever pipe hook works as a cantilever beam wherein the major portion of load act as point load at the base of recovery mechanism in four mountings. But the chassis frame is designed and approved to carry uniformly distributed load in platform of load body. So the concentrated or pointed load will cause the breakage of chassis frame and stability of the vehicle”. The Appellate Authority also has spoken in the very same tenor, quoting the provisions of the Act and the judgment produced at Exhibit R1(g). 10. The counter affidavit also specifically speaks of the vehicle being fitted with a wheel lifting mechanism, which extended to 1300 mm beyond the rear end of the vehicle. The Appellate Authority also has spoken in the very same tenor, quoting the provisions of the Act and the judgment produced at Exhibit R1(g). 10. The counter affidavit also specifically speaks of the vehicle being fitted with a wheel lifting mechanism, which extended to 1300 mm beyond the rear end of the vehicle. This provides a rear overhang of 2400 mm from the rear wheel, which is in violation of Rule 93(6) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On the background facts, it is pointed out that earlier the appellant had produced the vehicle with an additional weight added to the front bumper of the vehicle. This, according to the authorities, makes the vehicle dangerous insofar as the bumpers of the vehicles, both at the front and back, are intended as crumble zone to absorb impact loads on collision. The additional weight added to the front bumper has a hammer effect on any surface including that of a vehicle with which the subject vehicle collides resulting in disastrous consequences for that other vehicle. When these aspects were pointed out to the appellant, the vehicle was taken back and produced again removing the front additional weight and rear lifting mechanism temporarily, leaving the provisions for fitting them back after registration. 11. It is also very relevant that the orders impugned observe that the vehicle brought for registration has an overhang beyond the specification provided by the manufacturer and approved by the competent authority and the further weight added, of the towed vehicle, would lead to the front portion of the subject vehicle tilting up, on such additional weight at the rear portion. It is specifically pointed out that the prototype approval as a goods carriage is designed for the carriage of goods loaded uniformly within the body built upon the chassis, when the load will be uniformly distributed. The mechanism provided in the subject vehicle by which a disabled vehicle hangs by a hook at the rear of the vehicle would, on the contrary, exert concentrated loads on the mounted lifting mechanism affecting the stability of the vehicle. We perfectly agree with the authority in finding that there can be no registration granted on the basis of the alteration carried out. 12. We perfectly agree with the authority in finding that there can be no registration granted on the basis of the alteration carried out. 12. We are not impressed with the argument that other vehicles have been identically adapted and registered especially since the Government in its counter affidavit at paragraph 15 accepts that some Registering Authorities have carried out registration of goods vehicle as non-transport vehicle to be used as recovery van, which is against the provisions of the MV Act. It is asserted that the same error shall not be repeated. An illegality merely because of its repeated commission, cannot be condoned. We are also not impressed with the contention that there can be no tow truck or recovery vans permissible on the roads in India especially looking at Exhibit R1(d)produced by the State in its counter affidavit, which is a recovery vehicle manufactured by Tata Motors. 13. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the subject matter is squarely covered by the judgment in Hassan Koya. In Hassan Koya the question raised and decided was whether the Registering Authority can register a vehicle certified by the manufacturer as a 'goods vehicle', as a 'non-transport vehicle', based on the use to which the owner of the vehicle intends to put it to. A batch of appeals arose for consideration, in which the type of vehicles classified by the manufacturer and shown as 'Goods & Passenger vehicle, Normal Control' were sought to be registered as a non-transport vehicle while the classification as per the MV Act specifically included vehicles adapted for carriage of goods as transport vehicles. After adverting to the various definitions as found in the MV Act, the learned Division Bench held that if a motor vehicle is adapted for carriage of goods, it falls within the meaning of a goods carriage vehicle and would, hence, be a transport vehicle as defined under the Act. The certification issued by the manufacturer in accordance with the prototype approval obtained from the competent authority cannot be differed from and the Registering Authority has no discretion in the matter. 14. The certification issued by the manufacturer in accordance with the prototype approval obtained from the competent authority cannot be differed from and the Registering Authority has no discretion in the matter. 14. The Division Bench in Hassan Koya specifically observed that the Central Government has the power under Section 41(4) of the Act to specify by notification in the Official Gazette; the type of vehicle to be indicated in the Registration Certificate, having regard to the design, construction and use of motor vehicle and it was held that there is no such notification brought out by the Central Government. It is in this context we have to look at the notification relied on by the appellant. Identical Exhibit P11 and P12, produced in the writ petitions, is a notification issued under Section 41(4). It categorizes 'Tow Trucks, Breakdown Van and Recovery Vehicles' as 'non transport vehicles'. But, that is not to say that any vehicle, the prototype for which has been approved as a goods carriage, can be converted into a tow truck and used as such, being registered as a non-transport vehicle. The notification cannot run counter to the specifications in the statute. The power under Section 41(4) only enables the Central Government to prescribe, by notification, the other particulars required to be included in the Certificate of Registration and also specify the type of the motor vehicle. It cannot run counter to the definitions of the various categories of vehicles as provided under Section 2; nor can the prototype approval be differed from and a vehicle categorized as one type, registered as another. The definition of 'transport vehicle' includes a goods carriage vehicle and the prototype approval specifically requires the body to be built on the chassis in accordance with the specification so as to load goods on the body built over the chassis. The vehicle cannot be altered or modified at the will of the purchaser/owner to adapt it for other use. Hassan Koya held that the use or intention cannot decide the particulars to be entered in the Registration Certificate. 15. The decision in a batch of writ petitions as seen at Exhibit R1(g) produced in the writ petition from which W.A.No.685 of 2018 arises, is squarely on the point. Hassan Koya held that the use or intention cannot decide the particulars to be entered in the Registration Certificate. 15. The decision in a batch of writ petitions as seen at Exhibit R1(g) produced in the writ petition from which W.A.No.685 of 2018 arises, is squarely on the point. Exhibit R1(g) judgment dealt with two types of vehicles, one having a seating capacity of two and the other having a seating capacity of 3; both with open platform on the rear over the chassis for carriage of goods. The very same notification produced as Exhibits P11 and P12 were referred to therein. It was contended that though the prototype classification is 'goods carriage truck', the registration has to be on the basis of the intention of the owner of the vehicle. The intention was projected to be use as a crane mounted vehicle/breakdown van/recovery van. Reliance was placed on Hassan Koya to find that the intention of the user is not a relevant aspect for registration. It was also held that sub-section (4) of Section 41 does not confer power on the Central Government to specify the type of vehicle on the intended use. The power is one enabling specification in accordance with the 'designed construction and use'. The use cannot deviate from the design and construction at the will of the purchaser/owner. 16. In both the afore-cited decisions of this Court the issue was on the question of registration of transport vehicle, as a non-transport vehicle, which issue was projected only on the lesser tax effect for the latter. There is yet another legal impediment in registering the appellant's vehicle as a 'non-transport vehicle'. As we noticed, the manufacturer has classified the vehicle as 'N1' category as per the CMVR Certificate and the type indicated is 'goods carrier'. This comes squarely within the definition under Rule 2(p) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads as follows: “(p) 'Category N1' means a motor vehicle used for carriage of goods and having a Gross Vehicle Weight not exceeding 3.5 tonnes”. A goods carriage vehicle is a transport vehicle as per Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act. 17. In this case, what is projected is not only the question of registration as a transport vehicle, but the very denial of registration as a tow truck/recovery van as has been ordered by the Registering Authority. A goods carriage vehicle is a transport vehicle as per Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act. 17. In this case, what is projected is not only the question of registration as a transport vehicle, but the very denial of registration as a tow truck/recovery van as has been ordered by the Registering Authority. It has been held that the alteration made does not conform to the prescriptions of the MV Act and the prototype approval granted by the Automobile Research Association of India, as obtained by the manufacturer. In this context, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jayachandra assumes significance. The aforesaid judgment arose from a Division Bench judgment of this Court, authored by one of us [K.Vinod Chandran,J.]. The issue was with respect to registration of a vehicle, the chassis of which was purchased from the manufacturer and a body built on it as permissible under the MV Act and Rules. The challenge before this Court was against the Circular issued by the Transport Commissioner requiring the Regional Transport Authorities to deny registration to those vehicles constructed in violation of the Prototype Test Certificate and which are built not in strict compliance with the specifications given by the manufacturer. The Division Bench of this Court held that Rule 126 of the Central Rules does not fetter the power of the Regional Transport Authorities to exercise their discretion in terms of the Kerala Rules, in particular Rules 96, 103 and 261. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court, finding that the Division Bench had failed to give effect to the provisions contained in Section 52(1) of the MV Act and has laid emphasis on the Rules. The amendment made to Section 52 in the year 1994 was specifically referred to and it was held so in paragraph 29: “29. The object and the clear intent of 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 manufacturer issues sale certificate in Form 21 which has been framed under Rule 47(1)(a) of the Central Rules. Rule 47(1)(a) is extracted hereunder: “47. The manufacturer issues sale certificate in Form 21 which has been framed under Rule 47(1)(a) of the Central Rules. Rule 47(1)(a) is extracted hereunder: “47. Application for registration of motor vehicles.—(1) 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— (a) sale certificate in Form 21;” After extracting Form 20 and 21, it was authoritatively held so in paragraph 33 as herein below: “33. The vehicle has to comply with the provisions of the Rules contained in Chapter V of the Central Rules as provided in Rule 92(1). Rule 92(1) has to be read as subservient to the provisions contained in Section 52 of the 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 Section 52(1), 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 the 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 Rules, 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. 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 Section 52(1) 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 Section 52(1) and not specified therein by the manufacturer. 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 Section 52(1) and not specified therein by the manufacturer. The emphasis of Section 52(1) 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 Sections 52(2), (3) and (5) and the Rules. Under Section 52(5), 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. [underlining by us for emphasis] 19. Hence, there could be no alteration made in variance to the original specification by the manufacturer. As was noticed, the vehicle has been designed and manufactured in accordance with the prototype, which permits carriage of goods in a platform or a suitable body constructed on the chassis of the vehicle behind the driver's compartment, which allows seating to two persons including the driver. The crane mounted vehicle, which is intended to carry a broken down vehicle, was not the intention for which the vehicle has been designed and constructed. The various aspects pointed out by the authority as we have noticed hereinabove, are perfectly in order and there could be no such alteration made from that available in the Prototype Test Certificate. The specifications of the manufacturer as available in the CMVR Certificate produced as Exhibit P2 has been deviated from in making an alteration quite contrary to the design approved by the competent authority. We conclude that the alteration made would not enable registration as a non-transport vehicle and in addition, would result in the registration itself being declined, as has been rightly done by the authorities. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the decision of the authorities, as affirmed by the impugned judgment. 20. The learned Counsel for the appellant then made a fervent plea that if a uniform load carrying body is constructed and the vehicle presented for registration, at least the appellant may be allowed to use it as a goods carriage-transport vehicle. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that if such a course is permissible in accordance with law, the Registering Authority can consider the same. The learned Special Government Pleader submits that if such a course is permissible in accordance with law, the Registering Authority can consider the same. However, we do not make any observations whether it is permissible or not, which is left to the discretion of the authority who has to do it strictly in accordance with law. Only with the above reservation, the Writ Appeals would stand rejected leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.