IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 31278 of 2010(H) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- HEMA KUMAR, 4/267, MATTUPURATH, FEROKE P.O., KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, KOZHIKODE, (THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE), PIN-673 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 31278 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of Light Goods Vehicle bearing registration No. KL 11/AE 2934. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 order. As per Ext.P1 order, the request of the petitioner for permission to cover the platform of the vehicle only for the safety of goods to be carried in the vehicle was rejected by the respondent citing the reason that such alteration would violate the provisions under section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the petitioner is that the alteration sought for is only to cover of the body of the vehicle and it will not, in any way, alter the basic structure of the vehicle. So long as there is no alteration in the basic structure of the vehicle there cannot be any violation of Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, it is further contended. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that issues involved in this writ petition is covered WPC.31278/2010 : 2 : squarely in favour of the petitioner, in view of the decision of this Court in WP(C)No.2738/2010 which is produced as Ext.P2. I have gone through Ext.P2 judgment, I am perfectly in agreement with the view taken thereon. Evidently, the request of the petitioner for putting cover on the body of the vehicle for the safety of the goods to be carried in the vehicle, even if effected in the manner it is proposed, would not in any way alter the basic structure of the vehicle. If there is no alteration in the basic structure of the vehicle, an alteration would not violate the provisions under section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, such alteration will not change the classification of the vehicle as well. In the said circumstances and in the light of Ext.P2 judgment, Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside. I do so. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders granting permission to the petitioner for altering his vehicle in the manner requested for and to cover the body of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 11 AE 2934. Orders in that regard shall be passed at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If, at any later point of time, it is found that the classification of the above vehicle has been WPC.31278/2010 : 3 : changed by the petitioner it will be open to the competent authority to take appropriate action, in accordance with law. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge