IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 4777 of 2009(R) ------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- A.L.HIND TOURS & TRAVELS PVT. LTD., MAAKAZ COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, BIJU VARGHESE. BY ADV. MR..M.A.FAYAZ RESPONDENT : ------------------------ THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOZHIKODE. BY MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 4777 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Challenge in this writ petition is against Exhibit P6. 2. Exhibit P1 is the registration certificate of the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-01-C-8206, granted by the Registering Authority, Bangalore. Exhibit P1 also shows that fitness certificate has also been issued in respect of the above vehicle. Exhibit P2 is the Insurance Certificate and Exhibit P3 is the All India Tourist Permit granted in respect of the vehicle in question. Subsequently, the petitioner wanted to transfer the vehicle to Kerala and Exhibit P4 is the no objection certificate granted. He made Exhibit P5 application for assignment of new registration mark on removal of the vehicle to Kerala state and that was rejected by Exhibit P6. In Exhibit P6, reasons stated for rejecting Exhibit P5, reads as under; “On inspection it is found that at the rear portion of the longitudinal member of the chassis frame has been sheared and provides luggage boot; at the rear portion of the vehicle 9 seats were provided over W.P.(C) No. 4777/2009 2 locally fabricated members and not supported by the original chassis frame. On measurement and verification with Registration Certificate the wheel base is found that 222” and the overhang is found as 140”. It is more than 60% of the actual wheel base. As per the above inspection report the vehicle KA 01/C 8206 does not comply the chapter VII of M.V.Act, 1988 and rules made there under. Hence, the application for re-assignment in respect of KA 01/C 8206 hereby rejected with direction to produce the vehicle after complying the Chapter VII of M.V. Act, 1988.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Section 52 is totally irrelevant in so far as the facts of the case are concerned. He also relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in similarly situated cases, copies of which are Exhibits P8 and P14. 4. I heard learned Government pleader . In my view, Exhibits P8 and P14 judgments rendered by this Court, relied on W.P.(C) No. 4777/2009 3 by the counsel for the petitioner fully covers the issue in this writ petition. In the first judgment, it has been held that unless there are structural changes, Section 52 is not attracted. Following the said judgment, a case very much similar to that of the petitioner was disposed of by Exhibit P14 judgment. 5. In the light of these two judgments of this Court, Exhibit P6 shall stand quashed and Exhibit P5 application shall be reconsidered by the first respondent and registration sought shall be granted. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm