Partly allowed

Justin Joseph v. the Additional Registering Authority

Kerala HC14 Aug 2012WP(C)/6938/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the rejection of his vehicle registration application. The High Court held that the rejection order was unsustainable because the authority failed to inspect the altered vehicle and certify it as roadworthy before refusing registration, as required by this Court's earlier ruling.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the registration application was set aside. Directions were issued to the respondent to inspect the vehicle, certify if it is roadworthy, and pass a final order within six

Justin Joseph Vs the Additional Registering… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/23RD SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6938 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JUSTIN JOSEPH, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.N.L.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, WELL CARE CHEMICALS, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, MUNDATHICODE PO THRISSUR 680601. (REGISTERED OWNER OF KL-48/C-8812).

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS SMT.AGI SHOBY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTERING AUTHORITY CUM THE JOINT REGIONAL OFFICER (JOINT RTO) SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, WADAKANCHERY P.O., 680582, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

**Addl.R2 IMPLEADED ADDL.R2 VEHICLES RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT (VRDE), AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA 414 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. (ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/04/2012 IN IA NO.5247/2012.)

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.P.PADMALAYAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 6938 of 2012 (N)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 8.12.2011 OF THE VEHICLE KL-48/C-8812. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17.12.2011 ALONG WITH CHALAN. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE RESPONDENT DATED NIL ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.3.2012. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE KL-48/B-5807 DATED 10.8.2010. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE KL-48/B-6694 DATED 9.9.2010. EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF DETAILS OF THE VEHICLE KL-46/E-3149 DATED 24.6.2011. EXHIBIT-P8. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE VRDE, DATED 21.1.2010.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.6938 of 2012.

¶24

= = = = = = = = = = = =

¶25

Dated this the 14^th August, 2012.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order by which an application submitted by the petitioner for the registration of his vehicle has been rejected. Ext.P4 has been issued for the reason that, the proposed alteration would change the basic features of the vehicle and thereby the particulars recorded in the Certificate of Registration in respect of the type of body, unladen weight etc. as well as the load carrying capacity of the vehicle would be changed. According to the counsel for the petitioner, Section 52 permits alterations to be conducted. It is also pointed out that construing the terms of Section 52, this Court has held that the question regarding permissibility of a particular alteration would have to be decided by the competent authority after a

¶28

WP(C).No.6938/2012.

¶29

¶30

physical examination of the altered vehicle. The counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on an unreported judgment of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in WP(C).No.29946 of 2006. Since Ext.P4 has not been issued in compliance with the directions contained in the above judgment of this Court, it is contended that the said order is liable to be set aside.

¶31

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. According to the counter-affidavit, the vehicle of the petitioner was originally 'open', which has been converted to a 'closed' vehicle. Therefore, the alteration that has been effected has resulted in a change in the basic features of the vehicle, which is not permissible.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt.Pleader. I have also considered the rival contentions anxiously.

¶33

A similar question had arisen in the unreported decision of this Court dated 16.1.2007 in WP(C).No.29946

¶34

WP(C).No.6938/2012.

¶35

¶36

of 2006. In the said case also, an open body vehicle had been converted into a closed body vehicle. This Court considered the scope of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) and has held that, alteration of a motor vehicle is permissible under Section 52 of the Act. However, the altered vehicle would thereafter have to be inspected by the competent authority and his satisfaction would have to be recorded that the same was fit to be used in a public place. The conclusions of this Court are contained in the following passage in paragraph 3 of the said judgment:

¶37

“Going by the above Rules, the modified vehicle shall be inspected by the Registering Authority or caused to be inspected by the said officer and it should be certified that the vehicle is roadworthy and can be used in public place. So, if the registering authority finds and certifies that the alteration made will not make the vehicle unfit to be used in public place, the registration particulars can be changed accordingly and thereafter the vehicle can be permitted to be used on public roads. But, going by the explanation added to sub-section (5), alteration contemplated in

¶38

WP(C).No.6938/2012.

¶39

¶40

the Act and the Rules takes in only alteration of basic feature.”

¶41

It has been further held by this Court in the said decision that a major variation cannot be sanctioned by the competent authority. The above conclusion of this Court is contained in paragraph 6 of the said judgment which reads as follows:

¶42

“Minor alterations do not require the permission of the registering authority. Alterations which may be described as those affecting the basic feature of the vehicle alone require permission of the said authority. A certificate in Form MC is contemplated when the particulars of the vehicle are different from those cleared in the prototype test. So, additional constructions on the chassis, which will be noted in Form MC certificate can be the basis for entering particulars in the R.C., though they may be at variance with those recorded at the time of prototype test. Otherwise no chassis can be converted into a stage carriage or a goods carriage. So, the stand of the respondents that there cannot be any permission for variation involving the basic structure, cannot be accepted. There can be variation and if the competent officer certifies that the vehicle is fit to be used in public places after the variation, the same

¶43

WP(C).No.6938/2012.

¶44

¶45

can be permitted and the varied details can be entered in the R.C.”

¶46

I am in respectful agreement with the above directions.

¶47

A reading of Ext.P4 does not offer any indication that the directions of this Court extracted above have been complied with. The counter-affidavit filed also does not state whether the altered vehicle had been inspected by the competent authorities. Therefore, the fact remains that Ext.P4 was not preceded by a finding as to whether the vehicle after it is altered, was fit to be used in a public place or whether it was safe. Therefore, Ext.P4 is unsustainable. The same is accordingly set aside.

¶48

This writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 application for registration submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law and the directions contained in the judgment of this Court referred to above, to inspect the same, and to enter a finding as to whether it is road worthy on the basis of the said directions

¶49

WP(C).No.6938/2012.

¶50

¶51

and to pass final orders thereon. Final orders as indicated above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge)

¶53

Kvs/-

Justin Joseph v. the Additional Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Justin Joseph v. the Additional Registering Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Abdul Vahab

K.P.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

E. Hamza Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

K.C.Peter Vs Dr.B Asok

Rejitha Vs the District Collector

John C.Antony Vs the State of Kerala