KISHORE KARWANKAR Vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's motor car bearing No. AEY 6116 was intercepted on 6-11-2002 at 2 P.M. and on inspection it was revealed that the vehicle was fitted with Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L. P. G.) kit and was running on L.P.G. On the ground that it was being run on unauthorised fuel, the registration certificate and the driving licence were impounded for appropriate action. Alleging that no source of power for impounding is set out in the vehicle check report, that there is no power to impound and that the petitioner is empowered to run the vehicle on L.P.G., either by itself or in conjunction with any approved fuel, the petitioner is before this court seeking the relief of a Mandamus to the respondents to declare "the prosecutions by the first respondent as mala fide and ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act read with Constitution of India and further direct the first respondent to refrain from prosecuting the people using locally made L.P.G. kit from Andhra Pradesh" and for further reliefs.

(2.) The relief is claimed on a presumptive urging by the petitioner that there is an inherent right to run a motor vehicle on any fuel of his choice. unless prohibited by any legislation. It is further contended that inasmuch as S. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") has been amended by Act No. 27 of 2000, which in proviso to sub-sec. (1) thereof enables the modification of the engine or any part thereof for facilitating its operation by different types of fuel or sources of energy, including inter alia, Liquefied Petroleum Gas, the petitioner is entitled to run his vehicle, including on Liquefied Petroleum Gas, either singly or in conjunction with other authorized fuel, and that this right, which is a concomitant to the facilitative legal regime under S. 52 of the Act, cannot be subverted by the inaction of the respondents in prescribing conditions subject to which the alterations could be carried out or the vehicles enabled to run on Liquefied Petroleum Gas.

(3.) None of these contentions commend themselves to acceptance by this Court. Section 52 of the Act in its evolutionary history or present form posits a legislative philosophy of protecting the users of the vehicles and all other users of the Roads, who are likely to be impacted positively or adversely by the running of motor vehicles from any harm befalling from the plying motor vehicles. Elaborate regulations have been made under the provisions of the Act to certify registrations. The Act does not enable every person to manufacture a vehicle and obtain registration. The manufacturer will have to confirm to the rigid standards postulated by the Act. Similarly, a registered vehicle cannot be so altered as to amount to a change in the structure of a vehicle, which results in a change in its basic feature (Explanation to Section 52 of the Act). Thus, the provisions of Section 52 and other provisions of the Act are intended to ensure that technological experimentation in the manufacture and use of motor vehicles does not result in injury to the life and limb of either the passengers of such vehicles or other inhabitants, who are likely to be impacted by the user of such vehicles. Thus, such alterations involving alteration in the basic feature of the vehicle and which have the effect of variation of the particulars contained in the certificate of registration require to be approved by the appropriate and stipulated competent authority under the provisions of Section 52 of the Act. The mere fact that there is available, at the disposal of the petitioner, an untested facility, which enables him to use L.P.G., for running his vehicle, does not permit the petitioner to run his vehicle on such as yet untested fuel or by an unapproved technology. Neither considerations of public interest nor the specific provisions of the legislation, in particular Section 52 of the Act, permit the liberty that the petitioner claims in this writ petition.