P K BAIJU Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, the owner of a 1993 model Bajaj Tempo initially classified as an Omni Bus and later changed as a contract carriage, applied before the registering authority for conversion of the above vehicle as a Goods Carriage " (delivery Van). The above application was rejected by the registering authority and the order was challenged before this court in O.P. 35749\01. This court set aside the above order and directed the registering authority to reconsider the application for conversion afresh. The registering authority considered the same and by Ext. P9 order dt.2.1.02 again rejected the prayer. The above Ext. P9 order rejecting the prayer for conversion of the vehicle as a goods carriage is under challenge in this O.P.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(3.) The only question for consideration is whether a vehicle registered as a passenger vehicle can be allowed to be converted as a goods carriage. The petitioner's vehicle with seating capacity of 16 in all was originally registered as a passenger vehicle on the basis of the prototype certificate. Originally it was classified as a omni bus and later it was classified as a private service vehicle. The petitioner filed an application for conversion of the vehicle as a goods carnage and the registering authority rejected that prayer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Ext. P4 order issued by the Transport Commissioner dt. 14.6.01, conversion of the above vehicle is allowable as the basic model of both the vehicles is the same. Ext. P4 was a communication issued by the Transport Commissioner to the subordinate informing the approval of the variance of some basic models by the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) and the details also have been furnished in the communication. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that category VIII in Ext. P4 was F 307 Van Mini Bus (Basic model) and the above category would include prototypes which could be used as mini bus or delivery van and as the vehicle of the petitioner would come within category VIII and as there was no structural alteration, conversion as prayed for was allowable. It was further argued that the definition of "transport vehicle" under