JUDGMENT : Harisankar V. Menon, J. The 2nd petitioner is the registered owner of a tanker lorry bearing registration No.KL-09-5238. Noticing that the life of the vehicle expired in 2015, the 2nd petitioner submitted an application at Ext.P1 for cancellation of the registration certificate. Along with that application, an application in Form G was also presented with respect to the liability under the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976. In Ext.P1, the 2nd petitioner specifically stated that the registration requires to be cancelled for the purpose of dismantling the vehicle in question. 2. By Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent herein informed the 2nd petitioner that the application filed as above could not be considered on the basis of an enquiry report obtained from the Motor Vehicles Department, which reported that the engine of the vehicle in question had been detached and was being used for domestic purposes. It is challenging the afore proceedings of the 2nd respondent that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioners. 3. I have heard Sri.P.Raveendran Pillai, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.K.B.Sony, the learned Government Pleader. 4. The short issue arising for consideration in this writ petition is as regards the sustainability of the findings contained in Ext.P2. 5. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was registered under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the life of the carriage was over by 2015. It is under the provisions of Section 55 of the Act that the cancellation of registration is provided for. Section 55, to the extent relevant herein, reads as under; “55. Cancellation of registration. – (1) If a motor vehicle has been destroyed or has been rendered permanently incapable of use, the owner shall, within fourteen days or as soon as may be, report the fact to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, and shall forward to the authority the certificate of registration of the vehicle. (2) The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration. (2) The registering authority shall, if it is the original registering authority, cancel the registration and the certificate of registration, or, if it is not, shall forward the report and the certificate of registration to the original registering authority and that authority shall cancel the registration. (3) Any registering authority may order the examination of a motor vehicle within its jurisdiction by such authority as the State Government may by order appoint and, if upon such examination and after giving the owner an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), it is satisfied that the vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and that it is beyond reasonable repair, may cancel the registration.” A reading of the above provisions would show that an owner of a motor vehicle is entitled to apply for cancellation of registration, when; i. the vehicle is destroyed; ii. the vehicle has been rendered permanently incapable of use. iii. use in public place would constitute a danger to public. iv. it is beyond reasonable repair. Here, the 2nd petitioner has filed an application at Ext.P1 seeking cancellation of registration. It is evident that an enquiry was also carried out. The enquiry report, as referred to in Ext.P2, indicates that the vehicle is lying unused, the engine of the vehicle has already been detached, and it is being put to domestic use. The counter affidavit filed also admits the above situation. Along with the counter affidavit, photographs of the vehicle and the present position of the engine is also produced. It is seen that, as claimed by the petitioner, the vehicle concerned is a pretty old one. The engine after being removed from the lorry is seen attached to a frame and used for agricultural purposes, as claimed by the petitioner. 6. As noticed earlier, cancellation of registration under Section 55 of the Act can be effected in a situation where the vehicle has been rendered permanently incapable of use. Here, the fact that the vehicle is no longer capable of being used is not in dispute. The engine is also seen detached and used for a “different purpose”. 6. As noticed earlier, cancellation of registration under Section 55 of the Act can be effected in a situation where the vehicle has been rendered permanently incapable of use. Here, the fact that the vehicle is no longer capable of being used is not in dispute. The engine is also seen detached and used for a “different purpose”. The above situation, in my opinion, attracts the second limb of Section 55 of the statute – “rendered permanently incapable of use” as regards the vehicle in question. In such a situation, the findings in Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. This is especially so, since the Act do not say as to how the vehicle is to be dismantled. 7. However, the proceedings at Ext.P2, for that matter, the averments in the counter affidavit are not clear as regards the present state of the vehicle, as removed of the engine. In such circumstances, this writ petition would stand disposed of as under; i. Ext.P2 issued by the 2nd respondent would stand set aside. ii. The 2nd respondent to conduct an enquiry as regards the present state of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-09-5238 and if it is confirmed that the engine is detached and has been separately used for a different purpose altogether from 2019 onwards, the 2nd respondent should exercise the power available to him under Section 55 and cancel the registration. iii. Insofar as it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are subsequent proceedings taken against the 2nd petitioner for the liability with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, such proceedings to be kept in abeyance till the final disposal of the claim for cancellation as above.