IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21726 of 2008(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- M/S CHALLENGE TRAVELS (P) LTD., SENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SANIL B. MENON, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O BHASKARA MENON, THATTASSERIL BUILDING, KAKKOOR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.K.JOSE KURIAKOSE SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. 2. THE ADDL. REGISTERING AUTHORITY, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 661. 3. THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE -II, ERNAKULAM (INCHARGE). BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 21726 OF 2008 J ==================== Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the registered owner of medium goods vehicles bearing Regn.Nos.KL 17 E 5271 and KL 17 E 5274. These were open body vehicles and the petitioner wants to convert vehicles from open body to close body with tarpaulin sheet. Thereupon, the petitioner applied to the 1st respondent for allowing the alteration and that has been rejected by Ext.P3. Against Ext.P3, the petitioner moved the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 order allowed the appeal taking the view that the alteration does not result in any structural changes to the vehicles to attract Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act. On that basis, the Registering Authority was directed to allow the alteration sought for by the petitioner. 2. Instead of obeying Ext.P4 and implementing the direction of the superior authority, the Regional Transport Officer has addressed the Transport Commissioner by Ext.P5 contending that the order is wrong and seeking his instructions in the matter. It is aggrieved by this attitude of the 1st respondent, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner also submits that the view taken by the 3rd respondent in Ext.P4 order is consistent with WPC 21726/08 :2 : the law laid down by this court in Ext.P6 and therefore, according to them, there is absolutely no reason for the delay on the part of the 1st respondent to implement Ext.P4. 3. I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner in his contention. In several cases, this court has taken, in the absence of any structural change, Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act is inapplicable and this view is consistent with Ext.P6. On this basis, the requests made have been allowed. 4. Therefore, I see no justification for the 1st respondent's conduct in awaiting for the instructions of the Transport Commissioner to implement the appellate order passed by the 3rd respondent. Even otherwise, when an Appellate Authority has taken a view, the Subordinate is bound by the order of the superior authority and should effectively implement the same rather than criticising the appellate order. For that reason, I cannot approve Ext.P5 and Ext.P5 will stand quashed. The 1st respondent shall implement Ext.P4 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp