IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2008 / 18TH ASHADHA 1930 W.P.(C).No. 20801 of 2008(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- V.A.SULFIKAR, MANAGING PARTNER, HIGHSEAS EXIM, 1/1211, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, RIDSALE BRANCH ROAD, FORT KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, AT KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MATTANCHERI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, MATTANCHERI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20801 OF 2008 (B) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner challenges the order passed by the 4th respondent on Ext. P5 application made by him for issuance of a fitness certificate. The reason for rejection of the application is that there has been an alteration of the body of the vehicle offending the provisions of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. On facts, it is seen that the alteration made by the petitioner is that an open vehicle has been made a covered one. The photograph of the vehicle has also been produced by the petitioner as Ext. P4. 3. This very issue has been considered by this Court in several judgments including the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 29946/06, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P6. After an elaborate consideration, it has been held that unless there is change in the basic features of the vehicle, Section 52 of the Act now relied on W.P.(C) No.20801/2008(B) -2- against the petitioner is inapplicable. 4. In this case, I feel, having regard to the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in Ext. P6, the alteration made by the petitioner is not one to which Section 52 of the Act can be made applicable. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext. P5 and directing that the 4th respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P6 judgment a copy of which will be produced by the petitioner before the 4th respondent. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-