IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16485 of 2008(K) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- FR.PAUL ALAPPAT CMI, MANAGER, CARMEL H.S.SCHOOL, CHALAKKUDY-680507 THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN HARIHARAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, IRRINJALAKUDA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.16485/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DT. 31.1.2008 ISSUED BY THE M/S SAKTHI AUTOMOBILES, THRISSUR. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FORM 22A ON 19.3.2008 BY M/S. RENIL AUTO GARAGE, KECHERRY. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION 1.4.2008 FOR REGISTRATION OF THE VEHICLE MENTIONED IN EXT.P2. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.R1/22599/08 DDT. 12.5.2008. ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16485/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P4 order passed by the first respondent is under challenge. Registration in respect of the vehicle owned by an educational institution has been declined on the ground that the length and breadth of the vehicle exeeds the dimension of the Proto-type Certificate issued by ARAI, Pune, by 30 mm and 20mm respectively. 2. According to the registering authority, such variation is in violation of Rule 126 of the CMV Rules, 1989 and on that basis the rejection has been ordered. I notice that while the learned counsel for the writ petitioner relies on the judgment in O.P.No.2637/2003 to impugn Ext.P4, the learned Government Pleader produced the judgment in W.P (c).No.8836/2007. 3. In the judgment in O.P.No.2637/2003, a learned single Judge took the view that unless alteration results 2 in the change of the basic feature of the vehicle, the provision of Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules will not apply to the modification made to the body of the stage carriage. However the learned single Judge who disposed of WP(c).No.8836/2007 took a contrary view. The facts of that case shows that the petitioner in that case had increased the length of the chassis by additional fittings to it. Therefore, it was taking note of that factual background, the learned Judge took the view that alteration was impermissible. 4. In my view, in the facts of the case, it is more appropriate to follow the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P.No.2637/2003. In this case, I do not find that the so called variation in the length and width of the vehicle has affected the basic structure of the vehicle. The change is confined only to the body of the vehicle. Therefore, Section 52 is inapplicable and for that reason Ext.P4 is liable to be quashed and I do so. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondent will reconsider the matter in the light of this judgment and also in the light of the judgment in 3 O.P.No.2637/2003 referred above, copies of which will be produced by the petitioner. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 4