JUSTIN JOSEPH Vs. ADDL REGISTERING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P4 order by which an application submitted by the petitioner for the registration of his vehicle has been rejected. Ext.P4 has been issued for the reason that, the proposed alteration would change the basic features of the vehicle and thereby the particulars recorded in the Certificate of Registration in respect of the type of body, unladen weight etc., as well as the load carrying capacity of the vehicle would be changed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, S. 52 permits alterations to be conducted. It is also pointed out that construing the terms of S. 52, this Court has held that the question regarding permissibility of a particular alteration would have to be decided by the competent authority after a physical examination of the altered vehicle. The counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in W.P.(C).No. 29946 of 2006. Since Ext.P4 has not been issued in compliance with the directions contained in the above judgment of this Court, it is contended that the said order is liable to be set aside. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to the counter- affidavit, the vehicle of the petitioner was originally 'open', which has been converted to a 'closed' vehicle. Therefore, the alteration that has been effected has resulted in a change in the basic features of the vehicle, which is not permissible.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.

(3.) A similar question had arisen in the unreported decision of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in W.P.(C).No. 29946 of 2006. In the said case also, an open body vehicle had been converted into a closed body vehicle. This Court considered the scope of S. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and has held that/alteration of a motor vehicle is permissible under S. 52 of the Act. However, the altered vehicle would thereafter have to be inspected by the competent authority and his satisfaction would have to be recorded that the same was fit to be used in a public place. The conclusions of this Court are contained in the following passage in paragraph 3 of the said judgment: