C ASWARATHA NARAYANA REDDY Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the memo dated 18-1-2007, issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kadapa, the 2nd respondent herein.

(2.) The petitioner purchased a tractor and got it registered with the 2nd respondent, on 16-11-2006. It was assigned the registration mark of A. P.04-L-4995. Subsequently, he purchased a Tractor Driven Harvester, from the same manufacturer, and submitted an application on 6-1-2007 before the 2nd respondent, to make necessary entries in the registration certificate. It is stated that the Transport Commissioner had approved the motor and specification of the harvester, through his proceedings dated 23-9-2006. The tractor and the harvester were produced before the 2nd respondent, on 8-1-2007, for necessary inspection. Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent rejected the application, stating that there is no provision to convert the tractor into tractor driven harvester. Petitioner contends that the harvester is nothing, but an agricultural implement, and the question of effecting any alteration to the tractor, does not arise. Placing reliance upon the instructions issued by the 1st respondent, through memo dated 28-12-2006, he contended that the impugned memo is contrary to the same.

(3.) The 2nd respondent filed to counter - affidavit. He states that the tractor purchased by the petitioner was registered in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is pointed out that the tractor driven combined harvester is an altogether different entity, and it requires separate registration. It is urged that, according to the request of the petitioner would result in alteration of one already registered vehicle. He has enclosed the necessary material, to point out the difference.