IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22237 of 2008(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------------- FR.PAUL ALAPPAT CMI, MANAGER, CARMEL H.S.SCHOOL, CHALAKKUDY-680507, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.22237/2008 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DTD. 31/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE M/S.SAKTHI AUTOMOBILES, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FORM 22A ON 19/03/2008 BY M/S.RENIL AUTO GARAGE, KECHERRY. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION 01/04/2008 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXT.P2. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R1/22599/08 DTD. 12/05/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WP(C) NO.16485/2008 DTD. 10/06/2008. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R1/22599/08 DTD. 08/07/2008 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.2637/2003 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 22237 OF 2008 V = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P6, whereby registration in respect of an Educational Institution Bus has been declined by the 1st respondent. 2. Earlier, when by Ext. P4 order, registration was declined in respect of this very vehicle, the reason stated was that in terms of the Proto-type Certificate from ARAI, the overall length and width is limited to 7125 mm. and 2140 mm. respectively. Thus, holding that the vehicle of the petitioner differed from the Proto-type Certificate issued by the ARAI, registration was declined by Ext. P4. That order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 16485/08. 3. By Ext. P5 judgment, this Court held that, since the variation was confined only to the body of the vehicle, Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act was inapplicable and for that reason Ext. P4 was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the matter was considered again and by Ext. P6, W.P.(C) No. 22237 OF 2008 -2- registration has been declined once again. It is challenging Ext. P6, the writ petition has been filed. 4. As already noticed in Ext. P4, while rejecting the request of the petitioner for registration of the vehicle, it was held that the specification of the vehicle varies from the Proto-type Certificate issued by the ARAI, Pune. According to the 1st respondent, the length and width of the vehicle was 7125 mm. and 2160 mm. respectively. However, following the reconsideration as ordered by this Court in Ext. P6, it is stated that the length and width of the vehicle is 7360 mm. and 2240 mm. Though the specification of the vehicle varies in Exts. P4 and P6, there is nothing to indicate which of these specifications is correct. Suffice it to say that the conclusion of the 1st respondent in Ext. P6 again is that the vehicle varies from the particulars mentioned in the Proto-type Certificate issued by the ARAI. 5. In Ext. P5 judgment, this Court had already held that the change in so far as the vehicle in question is concerned, is confined to the body of the vehicle and therefore Section 52 is inapplicable. Once this Court has held so, the 1st respondent is bound to have accepted and followed the said judgment and if he had done so, the W.P.(C) No. 22237 OF 2008 -3- only option that was available to him was to have registered the vehicle. On the other hand, instead of doing that, the 1st respondent in order to ensure that registration is denied to the petitioner, referred to the judgment in O.P. No. 2637/03 mentioned in Ext. P5 judgment, and distinguished the same by stating that the alteration involved in that case was of a bus into a diesel generator van. In my view, such distinction made by the 1st respondent in Ext. P6 was totally unwarranted and only reflects his anxiety to deny the registration of the vehicle in question. If he had followed the principle laid down by this Court in the judgment in O.P. No. 2637/03 and in Ext. P5 judgment, he could have easily realised that what is material while assessing the applicability of Section 52, is whether there is any structural changes in the vehicle and not peripheral changes. 6. In this case, since even according to the 1st respondent, the variation is only in the specification of the body of the vehicle and not the chassis I am satisfied that Section 52 is inapplicable. This view is fully supported by Ext. P7 judgment also. Therefore the conclusion otherwise arrived at in Ext. P6 is perverse and cannot be approved. W.P.(C) No. 22237 OF 2008 -4- 7. Ext. P6, therefore will stand quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to grant registration of the vehicle mentioned in Ext. P6. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-