IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 3996 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- HOMETECK COMMERCIAL AGENCIES PVT LTD PYARRY JUNCTION, THOPPUMPADY KOCHI-5 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.IBRAHIM P.M. BY ADV. SRI.V.J.MATHEW SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SRI.VARUGHESE CHERIAN SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, MATTACHERRY KOCHI. 2. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER CENTRAL ZONE, II, ERNAKULAM 682 030. 3. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (TRANSPORT) BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.3996/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF PETITIONER'S VEHILCE NO.KL 43/7863. EXT.P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.43/23956/EMT DT.9.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A3/1224/07/CZII DTD.22/8/07 IN APPEAL NO.18/07 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C1/19025/TC/2007 DTD.24/11/2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 3996 OF 2008 A ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 is a registration certificate of an LMV Goods Carriage bearing Regn.No.KL-43-7863. The type of the body has been shown in Ext.P1 Certificate of Registration as open. Petitioner submitted an application requesting for sanction to alter the type of the body by covering the same. The application was necessitated in view of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that only with the permission of the Registering Authority such alteration was possible. By Ext.P2, 1st respondent rejected the application made by the petitioner on the ground that the request made was against the terms of Section 52, which is confirmed by the 2nd respondent by Ext.P3, in an appeal filed by the petitioner. A revision was attempted before the 3rd respondent and that was also rejected by Ext.P4 on the ground that there was no provision for revision. It is in these circumstances writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P2 to P4 and allow the petitioner to alter the vehicle by making it one with a covered body. 2. Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no owner of WPC 3996/08 :2 : a Motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. However, the authorities are given power to permit alteration and if such alteration is allowed to be made, the same shall be necessarily entered in the Registration Certificate as well. The prohibition of the alteration as per Ext.P1 has been interpreted by this court in various cases as those fundamentally affecting the approved proto type of the vehicle. 3. In this case all that is sought for by the petitioner is to permit him to alter the vehicle from an open one to a closed one. In my view, the prohibition in Section 52 does not get contracted in such circumstances. Therefore, the matter needs to be reexamined and hence, quashing Exts. P2 to P4, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the matter shall be considered by the 1st respondent afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp