SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(AP) 796

G. Rohini, J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
E. Dastagiri
Vs.
The Regional Transport Officer and Anr.
Writ Petition No. 4082 of 2010
Decided On: 25.08.2010

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: S. Arifullah, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Government Pleader for Transport

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Section 52(3), 52(1) - Bringing alteration to notice - Claims to be registered owner of an Ambulance - Petitioner herein claims to be registered owner of an Ambulance seating capacity of five in all - He got it changed as Omni Bus with a seating capacity of in all by removing Ambulance equipment inside vehicle and fixing seats in all - Thereafter the petitioner made an application on bringing alteration to notice of 1st respondent - Regional Transport Officer Proddatur - and requesting to get vehicle inspected by Motor Vehicle Inspector so as to enable him to ply it as Omni Bus - said application was rejected by 1st respondent by proceedings dated and aggrieved by same present writ petition is filed contending that as per Section 52(3) of Motor Vehicles Act 1st respondent is bound to make necessary entries in Registration Certificate by collecting prescribed fee - The Learned Counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner along with his application had paid the necessary fee as well as the tax for seats and same was accepted it is not open to 1st respondent to reject petitioners application – Held, alterations made by petitioner have admittedly resulted in alteration of above said particulars contained in Certificate of Registration and apparently they are at variance with particulars originally specified by the manufacturer - Thus statutory prohibition under Section 52(1) is attracted and consequently th 1st respondent has rightly rejected the petitioners request for registering conversion of vehicle from Ambulance to Omni Bus - Sub-section (3) of Section 52 of the Act upon which Learned Counsel for petitioner placed reliance has no application to present case - Sub-section (3) has to be read along with Sub-section (2) which applies to those persons who own not less than transport vehicles - So far as the present case is concerned Sub-section (1) alone is applicable and therefore except the alterations of the engine to the extent mentioned in the proviso no other alterations are permissible - It is true that Circular referred to in impugned order was issued prior to Amendment Act - However even if said Circular is ignored prohibition under Section 52(1) of the Act is squarely attracted and therefore the impugned order cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever - Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed.

ORDER

G. Rohini, J.

1. The petitioner herein claims to be the registered owner of an Ambulance (Regn. No. AP-04-U-2474) with a seating capacity of five in all. He got it changed as Omni Bus with a seating capacity of 30 in all by removing the Ambulance equipment inside the vehicle and fixing the seats 30 in all. Thereafter the petitioner made an application on 1.2.2010 bringing the alteration to the notice of the 1st respondent - Regional Transport Officer, Proddatur - and requesting to get the vehicle inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector so as to enable him to ply it as Omni Bus. The said application was rejected by the 1st respondent by proceedings dated 8.2.2010 and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that as per Section 52(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the 1st respondent is bound to make the necessary entries in the Registration Certificate by collecting the prescribed fee.

2. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner, along with his application dated 1.2.2010 had paid the necessary fee as well as the tax for 30 seats and the same was accepted, it is not open to the 1st respondent to reject the petitioner's application. It is also contended that as the only change that was effected to the vehicle was fixation of the 30 seats instead of the existing 5 seats and there was no change at all in the structure of the vehicle nor there was any change in the basic features of the vehicle, the impugned order of rejection was illegal.

3. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for the respondents and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2.

4. Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act 27 of 2000 reads as under:

Section 52. Alteration in motor vehicle:

(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer: Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits:

Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific purpose.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, and permit any person owning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so as to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without the approval of registering authority.

(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under Sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein.

(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.

(5) Subject to the provisions made under Sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4), no person holding









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top