*THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI + WRIT PETITION No.4082 OF 2010 % 25/08/2010 # E. Dastagiri … Petitioner Vs. $ 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Proddatur, Kadapa District and another. … Respondents < Gist > Head Note: ! Counsel for the petitioner : Z Sri S. Arifullah ^ Counsel for the respondents : Government Pleader for Transport Cases referred : [1] AIR 2002 AP 148 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4082 OF 2010 Dated: 25.08.2010 Between: E. Dastagiri … Petitioner And 1. The Regional Transport Officer, Proddatur, Kadapa District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.4082 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner herein claims to be the registered owner of an Ambulance (Regn.No.AP-04-U-2474) with a seating capacity of five in all. He got it changed as Omni Bus with a seating capacity of 30 in all by removing the Ambulance equipment inside the vehicle and fixing the seats 30 in all. Thereafter the petitioner made an application on 1.2.2010 bringing the alteration to the notice of the 1st respondent – Regional Transport Officer, Proddatur – and requesting to get the vehicle inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector so as to enable him to ply it as Omni Bus. The said application was rejected by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 8.2.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that as per Section 52 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the 1st respondent is bound to make the necessary entries in the Registration Certificate by collecting the prescribed fee. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner, along with his application dated 1.2.2010 had paid the necessary fee as well as the tax for 30 seats and the same was accepted, it is not open to the 1st respondent to reject the petitioner’s application. It is also contended that as the only change that was effected to the vehicle was fixation of the 30 seats instead of the existing 5 seats and there was no change at all in the structure of the vehicle nor there was any change in the basic features of the vehicle, the impugned order of rejection was illegal. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act 27 of 2000 reads as under : “S. 52. Alteration in motor vehicle:- (1) No owner of 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: Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits: Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, and permit any person owning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without the approval of registering authority. (3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein. (4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. (5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4), no person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner. Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "alteration" means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.” The scope and object of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by Act 27 of 2000, was considered in detail by a Full Bench of this Court in A.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY v. UNION OF INDIA (F.B.)[1]. Having noticed the language of Section 32 of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which provided for alteration in motor vehicles vis-à-vis Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it stood prior to amendment by Act 27 of 2000 and thereafter, the Full Bench held as under: “The provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 52 inserted by the Amendment Act, 2000 must be read as to fulfil the object and purpose of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the phraseology used in the section may not be happy or the section may not be happily worded but we have to give a purposive meaning thereto. If the word "alteration" is read in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners we would not be able to give effect to the words "particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer." The changes in the structure of a vehicle resulting in change in its basic feature must not be at variance with the certificate of registration.” While observing that the changes effected by the Parliament in a phased manner clearly show that whereas the earlier provisions were merely regulatory, a prohibition had been imposed with a little elbow space therein, the Full Bench held that by reason of the proviso appended to Section 52 (1) of the 1988 Act, a modification of the engine or any part thereof was permissible and such modification of engine may be made for facilitating its operation by different types of fuel or source of energy as specified therein by fitting a conversion kit subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. It is clear from the law laid down by the Full Bench that Section 52 (1) prohibits alteration of vehicles as regards the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration which are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. It is not disputed before this Court that the Certificate of Registration contains many particulars including the type of body, seating capacity and class of vehicle. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the class of the vehicle in question was shown as “ambulance”. Similarly the type of body was shown as “closed” and the seating capacity was shown as “five in all”. The alterations made by the petitioner have admittedly resulted in alteration of the above said particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration and apparently they are at variance with the particulars originally specified by the manufacturer. Thus the statutory prohibition under Section 52 (1) is attracted and consequently the 1st respondent has rightly rejected the petitioner’s request for registering the conversion of the vehicle from Ambulance to Omni Bus. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Act, upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance has no application to the present case. Sub- section (3) has to be read along with sub-section (2) which applies to those persons who own not less than 10 transport vehicles. So far as the present case is concerned, sub-section (1) alone is applicable and therefore except the alterations of the engine to the extent mentioned in the proviso, no other alterations are permissible. It is true that the Circular dated 25.5.1996 referred to in the impugned order was issued prior to the Amendment Act 27 of 2000. However even if the said Circular is ignored, prohibition under Section 52 (1) of the Act is squarely attracted and therefore the impugned order cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.08.2010 Note:- LR copy to be marked. (B/O) gbs [1] AIR 2002 AP 148