ABDUL SATTAR Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, BELLARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of order/endorsement dated 14-10-1996 bearing No. RTO/RGN/ BLR/Ka-34/1299/96-97, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-'A' to the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are, that the petitioner moved an application under Sec. 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 49(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 for seeking permission and approval of the registering authority to make the alterations proposed to be made in the vehicle. The Regional Transport Officer, Bellary, has ordered that the applicant is hereby directed not to carry out any alterations in the said vehicle. The reason for issuing such a direction rejecting the application has been given as quoted hereinafter:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application had been moved to seek approval and permission of the Regional Transport Officer who is the registering authority, to make alterations in the vehicle, but to the surprise of the applicant, the application had been rejected and the petitioner had been directed not to make alterations on the ground mentioned above as there is no approval either to register the Tata 608 vehicle as Maxi Cab or to accord permission to convert the Tata 608 Light Goods Vehicle into Maxi Cab. The learned counsel contended that the reason is fallacious and it appears to be based on misconception of law. The learned counsel contended that the alterations in the motor vehicle can be made which may have the effect of altering the particulars with reference to the certificate of registration and modification thereunder only after giving notice to the registering authority of the purpose of alteration to be made as well as after obtaining the approval or permission of the registering authority to make alterations. Such an approval cannot be granted unless two conditions have been fulfilled, in view of Sec. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and as alterations cannot be carried out and therefore the application had been made. The Regional Transport Officer who is the registering authority should have considered the matter on merits and should have disposed of the application for grant of permission and approval to the proposed alterations. Instead of doing that, under this conception of law and authority, he has only directed the petitioner not to carry out any alterations. The learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to Rule 49 of the Motor Vehicles Rules as framed by the State of Karnataka popularly known as Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The learned counsel pointed out that the Regional Transport Officer is the registering authority in each region and therefore he had to consider the question of granting or refusing approval on merits, instead of passing the order impugned.