T. RAJANI, J.

1. This appeal, under clause 15 of Letters Patent is preferred, assailing the order passed in WP.No.15992 of 2008 dated 13.11.2008. The appellants before us are the Joint Transport Commissioner and Secretary, Road Transport Authority, Hyderabad and the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, South Zone, Hyderabad, who figured as respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition, which was allowed in favour of the petitioner, who approached the court with a grievance that the respondents refused to register his vehicle, on the ground that, the chassis having been changed, it is at variance with the particulars specified by the manufacturer.

2. The writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner being aggrieved by the act of the Registration authorities in rejecting his plea for registration of his vehicle, a Tayota car, the chassis number of which is MBJ11JB4007072937/01/07. The vehicle was given temporary registration, with No. AP 09 CHT/R 4288 and the temporary registration was made on 05.03.2007. The vehicle met with an accident on 06.05.2007 and a report was lodged by the writ petitioner before the Police Station, Shamshabad. The vehicle was shifted to the company's workshop whereat it was informed to the petitioner that the chassis of the vehicle was completely damaged and it has to be replaced with a new one, as such, the replacement of chassis was done with new chassis bearing No. MBJ11JV4007089266-060. The old chassis was scrapped, as being totally damaged. The writ petitioner, after fulfilling all the requirements with the financier and the insurance company, approached the third respondent therein - Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, along with an application dated 20.10.2007 seeking registration of the vehicle with new chassis number. The writ petitioner enclosed all the necessary documents like Forms 21 and 22, sale invoice, certificate issued by the police station, Shamshabad confirming the accident and letter of the dealer and the financier expressing no objection for the replacement of chassis. The writ petitioner's request to register the vehicle with new chassis number was rejected by way of order dated 21.01.2008 passed by the third respondent. The ground on which registration was rejected is that Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') precludes the owner of the vehicle from altering the vehicle.

3. The learned single Judge, in the order under appeal, set aside the order of the regional transport authority, dated 21.01.2008 and directed the third respondent therein to consider the application of the writ petitioner and register the vehicle of the petitioner, incorporating the new chassis number and issue necessary certificate of registration.

4. Impugning the said order, the appellants preferred this appeal on the grounds that the learned single Judge having held that no alteration is permitted under Section 52 of the Act, allowed the writ petition, which is absolutely illegal. The order is also illegal, as the writ petition was allowed on the ground that the insurance company and the manufacturer have changed the chassis and as such, directing the registering authority to register the vehicle, for that reason, is contrary to Section 52 of the Act. The learned single Judge failed to see that the chassis was replaced contrary to Section 52 of the Act without the permission of the registering authority.

4(a) Heard the counsel appearing on both sides.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings, appearing for the appellants, while contending that Section 52 of the Act does not permit any alteration to be made to the motor vehicle, which is at variance with the particulars originally specified by the manufacturer, relies on a Full Bench judgment of this court in A. Chandra Sekhar Reddy v. Union of India, (2002) 1 ALD 28 (FB) and a decision of a learned single Judge in E. Dastagiri v. Regional Transport Officer, (2010) 6 ALD 35 to draw support to his contention. Wh