2001 Supreme(AP) 1232

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, S.B.SINHA, V.V.S.RAO
A.Chandra Sekhar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 10-12-01

Headnote:Interpretation of statutes - purposive construction - words employed in a statute must be given their full meaning unless the same results in absurdity.

       Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 52(1) - proviso - Alteration in Motor Vehicle - word alter not to be read in isolation - Same to be read together with particulars contained in certificate of registration - where replacement took place, same amounts to alteration in the basic feature - proviso to section 52(1) applicable to modification of engine and not the total change of engine.

       Section 52 (1) prohibits alteration of vehicle as regards the particulars contained in the certificate of registration which are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. It is not in dispute that certificate of registration contains many particulars. Specifications of the manufacturer find place in some of the particulars.

       By reason of the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of S. 52 of the 1988 Act a modification of the engine or any part thereof is permissible. Such modification of engine may be made for facilitating its operation by different types of fuel or source of energy as specified therein. But such modification has to be made only by fitting a conversion kit. Such modification is also required to be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. The proviso, therefore, confines itself to the modification of engine and not the total change of the engine.

       By reason of substitution of petrol engine by a diesel engine an alteration in the basic feature takes place which is contrary to the specifications issued by the original manufacturer of the vehicle. By substitution of a petrol engine by a diesel engine, several changes including the laden weight as also changes in the aero-dynamic feature take place. By reason thereof more pollution may also be caused inasmuch as it is a common knowledge that except in certain situations for the purpose of running the vehicle at a lesser cost, the petrol engines are replaced by second-hand used diesel engines.

       The second proviso appended to sub-section (1) of S. 52 only empowers the Central Government to grant exemptions for alterations of vehicle for any specific purpose. An application for alterations of the vehicle for any purpose whatsoever can thus be entertained only by the Central Government. Such purpose may include the purpose which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners viz. , change of engine where the engine gets damaged by way of accident or otherwise and becomes absolutely unusable.

       Sub-section (2) of S. 52 provides for an enabling clause. It seems to achieve a limited object. It does not apply to individual cases and applies only to those persons who own not less than 10 transport vehicles. Sub-section (2), therefore, cannot be applied in a case where a person intends to alter the vehicle by changing the engine.

       For interpreting the word "alterations" within the meaning of sub-section (1) of S. 52, one has to refer to the explanation appended to sub-section (5) thereof which reads : a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.

       The word "alter" is not to be read in isolation. It is to be read together with the particulars contained in the certificate of registration.

       The provisions of sub-section (1) of S. 52 inserted by the Amendment Act, 2000 must be read as to fulfil the object and purpose of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the phraseology used in the section may not be happy or the section may not be happily worded but we have to give a purposive meaning thereto. If the word "alteration" is read in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners we would not be able to give effect to the words "particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. " The changes in the structure of a vehicle resulting in change in its basic feature must not be at variance with the certificate of registration.

       The contention of the Parliament in making amendment is clear and unambiguous. It intended to suppress a mischief. The authorities no longer exercise a power of mere regulation but also prohibition.

       e proviso appended to sub-section (1) of S. 52 thus must be read in restricted way particularly having regard to the fact that the word "manufacturer" therein has been used in relation to an engine and not substitution of one by the other. It is also well known that a writ Court cannot question the legislative policy of the State. It may cause some hardship to some citizens in certain situations but that, in our opinion, would not render the provision unconstitutional.