IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38034 of 2010(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. KERALA TRANSPORT COMPANY,YMCA ROAD, CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER SRI.P.V.CHANDRAN. 2. KALPAKA TRANSPORT COMPANY,YMCA ROAD, CALICUT,REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR,SRI.P.V.CHANDRAN. BY SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,(REGISTERING AUTHORITY),KOZHIKODE - 673 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.38034/2010 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-11/G 7209. P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 26/02/2010. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11/39185/2010 DTD. 11/03/2010. P4: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-11/A 2110. P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 20/07/2010. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.112179/2010 DTD. 21/07/2010. P7: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-11/G 7210. P8: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT,DTD. 26/02/2010. P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11/114383/2010 DTD. 24/07/2010. P10: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-11/G 7212. P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 26/02/2010. P12: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11/145832/2010 DTD. 16/09/2010. P13: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-11/G 7245. P14: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 17/07/2010. P15: COPY OF THE ORDCER NO.11/110420/2010 DTD. 19/07/2010. P16: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE KL-11/B 4883. P17: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 26/02/2010. P18: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.11/173462/2010 DTD. 1/11/2010. P19: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.6461/03 DTD. 4/03/2003. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.38034 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners own heavy goods vehicles which earlier possessed national permits. After the period of the permits expired, the petitioners moved the respondent for permission to convert the open body into a covered body. By the impugned orders which are produced as Exts.P3, P6, P9, P12, P15 and P18, the respondent rejected the applications on the ground that the alteration if permitted will run counter to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules made thereunder and that the alteration would result in change of prototype of the vehicle. In this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the said orders and seek a direction to the respondent to allow their applications for change. 2. The issue raised by the petitioners is covered by the decisions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2738 of 2010 and W.P.(C) No.31278 of 2010, wherein it was held that putting a cover on the body of the vehicle for the safety of the goods carried therein would not in any way alter the basic structure of the vehicle, and therefore, the restriction under section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act will not operate. It was also held that putting a cover on the body of the W.P.(C) No.38034 of 2010 2 vehicle would not also change the classification of the vehicle. As a matter of fact, the respondent herein was a party to W.P (C) No.31278 of 2010. In such circumstances, it has to be held that the impugned orders cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash P3, P6, P9, P12, P15 and P18 and direct the respondent to grant the permission sought by the petitioners in Exts.P2, P5, P8, P11, P14 and P17 applications expeditiously and in any event within three weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a copy of this judgment before him. If, at a later point of time, it is found that the petitioners have changed the classification of the vehicle under the guise of putting up a cover on the body of the vehicle, it will be open to the respondents to take such action as is necessary at that stage. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.