Authority, Palakkad, & another (2018 (2) KHC 89) this Court held that, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench in Shaju's case (supra) no request made by a permit holder for replacement of vehicle can be declined merely for the reason that the incoming vehicle is an older model, subject, of course, to the older model vehicle being certified as roadworthy. After referring to the decision of the Apex Court in M.C. Metha's case [(1997) 8 SCC 770] , wherein it was held that the requirement of maintaining the motor vehicles in the manner prescribed and its use if roadworthy in a manner which does not endanger public, has to be ensured by the authorities and this is the aim of the provisions enacted in the Motor Vehicles Act; and also the provisions under Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with certification of fitness of transport vehicles and Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, which deals with validity of certificate of fitness, this Court in Usha Nanthini's case held that, a vehicle which no longer complies with all the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder cannot be permitted to be driven or plied on the road. Therefore, roadworthiness and viability of the incoming vehicle shall be the consideration in an application for replacement, rather than the model of the incoming vehicle.
