IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 15442 of 2008(L) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ DIVAKAR PRABHU, S/O.VAMANA PRABHU, 39/5031, MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, COCHIN-16. BY ADVS. SRI.M.A.MANHU SRI.M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT: --------------------- REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER K.V. MANOJ KUMAR SRI. P. RAMAKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL-07-AX-7692 EXT. P2 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL-07 BC 553 EXT. P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF INSURANCE PARTICULARS OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL-07-AX-7692 EXT. P4 : PHOTOCOPY OF INSURANCE PARTICULARS OF VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL-07-BC-553 EXT. P5 : PHOTO OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REG. NO. KL-07-AX-7692. EXT. P6 : PHOTO OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. KL-07-BC-553 EXT. P7 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 4.12.07 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT. P8 : PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 26.2.08 OF THE RESPONDENT. EXT. P9 : PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 29946 OF 2006 DATED 16.1.2007. EXT. P10 : PHOTOCOPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO. 35390 OF 2007. EXT. P11 : PHTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. C.812/SZ/08 DATED 6.5.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 15442 OF 2008 (L) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts. P7 and P8 by which the request for ratification of the alteration of the body of the vehicle mentioned therein has been rejected by the respondent. The reason stated for such rejection is that the action of the petitioner in altering the body of the vehicle is in violation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. The alteration in question made by the petitioner is that he has converted the open body of the vehicle into a covered one. In my view, Section 52 will not apply to a case unless there is change in the basic structure of the vehicle. This is the view taken by this Court in several judgments including Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 29946/06. 3. Having regard to the law as laid down in the aforesaid judgment this writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts. P7 and P8 and directing that the respondent shall reconsider the matter in the W.P.(C) No. 15442 OF 2008 - 2 - light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 29946/06 a copy of which will be made available by the petitioner to the respondent, on the basis of which certificate will also be issued. Orders as above shall be passed by the respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-