IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1822 of 2009(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- JAYAPAL T.S., PROPRIETOR, TIMS FOOD PRODUCTS, T.C.43/253, THOTTAM, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN - 695009. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 1822 OF 2009 (P) ==================== Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of a light motor goods vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-01/AT.8030. The vehicle was having an open body and the petitioner wanted to convert it into one having closed body. He says that he made an application to the RTO, who by Ext.P2 accorded sanction for alteration. It is stated that the work has since been completed and he made an application to the 2nd respondent for inspecting the vehicle. Ext.P4 is stated to be the receipt of the fee that has been paid. Petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent is not inspecting the vehicle on the premise that the alteration done by the petitioner is in violation of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2. Several judgments have been rendered by this Court that unless there is structural change in the vehicle, Section 52 is not attracted. In this case, irrespective of that issue, the fact remains that the 1st respondent has already accorded sanction for the alteration. If that be so, the 2nd respondent cannot decline inspection on the ground that Section 52 is violated. 3. In view of the above, it is ordered that if an application has WPC 1822/09 :2 : been made by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent for issuing the fitness certificate as averred in this writ petition, the 2nd respondent shall inspect the vehicle mentioned in Ext.P1 and examine whether the vehicle is fit for the issue of the certificate. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner may produce a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp