REGISTERING AUTHORITY, KANNUR Vs. C H MUNEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in W.P.(C) .No.26710 of 2014 is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by the respondent herein seeking to challenge Ext.P5 order issued by the appellant declining registration of a recovery van. By the judgment under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside Ext.P5 on the ground that re-registration could not have been denied under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On that basis, the learned single Judge directed re-consideration of the application made by the respondent to assign registration mark as provided under Section 47. It is this judgment which is under challenge.

(2.) We heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and considered the submissions made. On facts, we find that the respondent had brought the recovery van bearing registration No.TN-23-L/1743 from Tamil Nadu and applied for grant of transfer of ownership and assignment of new registration mark. That was rejected by the appellant by Ext.P2 order, making reference to the report of the Inspector of Motor Vehicles that the specification of the vehicle was changed and using the vehicle on road is totally unsafe. On that basis, holding that the vehicle was not complying the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder, the application for grant of transfer of ownership and assignment of new registration mark was rejected. Appeal was filed and the Deputy Transport Commissioner disposed of the appeal by Ext.P3 order. In Ext.P3 order, it is stated that during the course of the personal hearing, the respondent raised a contention that the alterations to the vehicle were made with the permission of the Central Registering Authority, Chennai. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority remitted the matter to the respondent to ascertain as to whether the alterations were made with the permission of the Central Authority and if so, to to inspect the vehicle and to reconsider the application made by the respondent. The matter was reconsidered and from Ext.P5 order passed by the Registering Authority, the appellant herein, it is seen that the Central Registering Authority, Chennai had clarified that the alteration made was not known to that authority. Taking note of this and also the variations made, the registering authority took the view that the vehicle did not comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and it is on that basis the application was rejected. The aforesaid facts noticed by us would show that when originally the registration was denied by the appellant, the respondent had carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The Deputy Transport Commissioner remanded the matter to the respondent with a direction to ascertain from the concerned registering authority whether the alterations made to the vehicle were with its approval. It was accordingly that the matter was taken up by the original authority who, as is seen from Ext.P5, had clarified that the alterations made were not known to that authority. Once the original authority has clarified that the alterations made were not known to that authority and as the vehicle admittedly is an altered one, according to us, the registering authority was perfectly justified in rejecting the application made by the respondent. Such an application could not have been considered within the confines of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned single Judge. The judgment under appeal is set aside and the appeal is allowed.