The petitioner states that he purchased light motor vehicle (Innova 2.5), a product of M/s. Toyota Kirloskar Motors Pvt. Ltd. From M/s. Dobro Toyota, chasis number of the vehicle is MBJ11JB4 007072937/01/07.

The vehicle was given Temporary Registration No. AP 09 CHT/R 4288 on 05.03.2007 and Temporary Registration Certificate also. While so, the vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2007, in respect of which, the petitioner lodged a report before the Police Station, Shamshabad. The vehicle, through the dealer was shifted to the company's workshop, who informed the petitioner that the chasis of the vehicle has been completely damaged and has to be replaced with a new one. Accordingly, the chasis of the vehicle was replaced with a new chasis bearing No. MBJ11JV 4007089266-060, while the old chasis was scrapped. After fulfilling all the formalities with the financier and the insurance company, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent, namely the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, by way of an application dated 20.10.2007, for registration, duly enclosing the documents, such as Forms 21 and 22, Sale Invoice, Certificate issued by the Police Station, Shamshabad, confirming the accident, Dealer Letter and Financier's 'No Objection Certificate" to the replacement of the chasis, and requested him to register the vehicle duly incorporating the new chasis number in the Registration Certificate in the place of the old chasis number.

The Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle, found that the vehicle was replaced with a new chasis and that the old chasis which was damaged completely in the accident, was scrapped. However, the 3rd respondent without registering the vehicle, vide order dated 21.01.2008 returned the application to the petitioner stating that the request of the petitioner for registration of the vehicle cannot be considered because the particulars contained in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, and that Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 precludes the owner of the vehicle from altering the vehicle. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle has not been registered, it has been given only temporary registration certificate. Even before the vehicle could be registered, the vehicle met with an accident, in which the chasis of the vehicle was completely damaged. As the chasis was completely damaged, the company's workshop had replaced the chasis with a new one. He submitted that the petitioner has not altered the vehicle, the chasis of the vehicle was replaced, and the said replacement was necessitated because the old chasis was completely damaged in the accident, and it was scrapped by the company. The company, having replaced the chasis, issued certificate to that effect, and in fact, the financier and the insurance company, which insured the vehicle, expressed no objection to the replacement of the chasis. He submitted that since it is not a case of altering of the vehicle, but replacement of old chasis with a new one, the provisions of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be made applicable. Therefore, the action of the 3rd respondent in returning the application of the petitioner without registering the vehicle on the ground that the particulars mentioned in the Certificate of Registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, is illegal and arbitrary. He submitted that if the 3rd respondent refuses to register the vehicle, the petitioner would be put to heavy loss, in that the petitioner cannot make use of the vehicle, and he has to pay the loan amount to the financier, irrespective of whether he makes use of the same or not. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent be set aside, the writ petition be allowed, and the 3rd respondent be directed to receive the