IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14018 of 2004(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.A.SURENDRAN, S/O. KOLLULLY AYYAPPAN, KOLLULLY HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.SANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).14018/04 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE, BEARING REG.NO.KLQ 6556 EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.11.8.2003 SUBMIITED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.30.8.2003 ISSUED BY ADDL. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, THRISSUR IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.11.12.2003 IN WP(C).38269/03 OF THE HIGH COURT EXT.P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.10.3.04 ISSUED BY DY. TRANSPORT COMMISSIOINER IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6:-TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY SURENDRA MOTOR WORKS, TRICHUR EXT.P7:-TRUE COPY OF BILL OF ENTRY DT.22.4.98 ISSUED BY CUSTOMS HOUSE,COCHIN RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL okb //True Copy// P.A. to Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 14018 OF 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P3 proceedings issued by the respondent by which his application for replacement of the existing petrol engine in his car No.KL-Q/6556, by an imported secondhand diesel engine, is rejected. When Ext.P3 was challenged before this Court on an earlier occasion, he was relegated to the remedy by way of appeal, as per Ext.P4 judgment. Ext.P5 is the appellate order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The rejection was on the ground that the replacement if allowed will amount to structural alteration of the vehicle and it will lead to increase in the “unlaiden weight” of the engine, which is prohibited under Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Further reason stated is that the Transport Commissioner had clarified that such replacement can be allowed only with another engine of the same make and type specified by the manufacturer. The appellate authority had also reiterated the very same reasons for rejecting the request. 2. By an interim order dated 4.5.2004 the respondent W.P.(C).14018/04 2 was directed not to remove the Diesel Engine already fitted in the car, pending disposal of the writ petition. In a further direction in I.A.6489/06 dt: 26.9.2006, this Court directed to accept the tax for the current year after making due endorsement in the registration certificate. The factual situation now continues as such. 3. Heard Smt.SumathiDandapani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The respondent in their statement contends that as per proviso to Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, only an alteration of the engine could be done for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel, by fitment of “conversion kit” specified by the State Government. Therefore what is contemplated in the first proviso to Section 52(1) is not a replacement of the existing engine by another type of engine. The respondent also points out that the Transport Commissioner, had clarified the position by Circular No.12/01-CC1- 16453/TC/00, wherein it is stated that the replacement of engine can be allowed only with another engine of the same make and type as specified by the manufacturer for that particular vehicle. 4. On a reading of Section 52(1), I find that the provision does not contemplate a situation of replacement of the engine of W.P.(C).14018/04 3 a motor vehicle by another engine of different type. But going through the statement filed based on the clarification issued by the Transport Commissioner, it is noticed that such alteration was being permitted in cases where the engine to be replaced is that of the same make and type. The petitioner had produced Ext.P6 certificate obtained from the 'Automobile Workshop' wherein the alteration was effected. So also he had produced Ext.P7 “Bill of Entry” with respect to import of the engine. As stated above, the petitioner was permitted to run the car with the altered engine since the year 2004 onwards and tax due on the vehicle was also received, by virtue of interim orders of this Court. Considering these aspects and taking note of the circular issued by the Transport Commissioner, it is for the authorities to decide whether the petitioner's request can be treated as special case to permit continued usage of the car with the replaced engine till its permissible date of usage. 5. In these circumstances the petitioner is hereby relegated to the Transport Commissioner with a direction to file a representation in this regard, within a period of three weeks from today. The Transport Commissioner of the State will consider the facts and circumstances of the case as evidenced from the records and will take a final decision in the matter, W.P.(C).14018/04 4 after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, bearing in mind the observations as above. The decision in this regard may be taken as early as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation. The interim orders of the court as stated above will prevail till a final decision is taken by the Transport Commissioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb