K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. The question raised is as to whether, while building the body on the chassis of a vehicle, with an approved "prototype", alteration is permissible at variance with the manufacturer's specification contained in the "prototype test certification".

2. These writ petitions are posted before the Division Bench on an order of reference on an apparent conflict between decisions by learned single Judges in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006 and W.P.(C).No.8836 of 2007. While W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006 was decided holding that alteration is not totally prohibited and certification of the Registering Authority as to the road-worthiness is mandated by the statutory provisions, W.P. (C).No.8836 of 2007 was rendered holding that the prototype approved by the Automotive Research Association of India (for short "ARAI") cannot be tampered with.

3. By a Circular dated 28.9.2006, the Transport Commissioner reminded the Registering Authorities of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter, 'M.V. Act', and required them to decline registration if it is in contravention of Section 52 of that Act. The writ petitions are filed challenging the action of the Registering Authorities concerned, refusing registration of vehicles which have been fitted with bodies on the chassis manufactured by the respective manufacturers. Such refusal has been made under Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for short, 'the C.M.V. Rules'.

4. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.28702 of 2007 purchased a Medium Commercial Bus chassis manufactured by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., of model Tata LP 1109/42-4200 MM. On building the body over the chassis in accordance with the M.V. Act, the C.M.V. Rules and the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the K.M.V. Rules'); the vehicle was produced for registration. However, on the ground that "the platform of the bus is extended to a distance of 37 cms and the body is having extension of 39 cms from the extreme rear end of the chassis long members, by reason of fabrication work using C channels of 7 cms width against long members, having 20 cms width" and that the same would be in violation of Rule 126 of the C.M.V. Rules, the application of the petitioner was rejected by Exhibit P7. The petitioner has produced Exhibit P3, issued by the Transport Commissioner, which would indicate the technical specifications of the model TATA LP 1109/42-4200 bus chassis with the specified length of 757.5 cm. The petitioner's vehicle after the body was built, had an extended length of 39 cms., i.e., a total length of 796.5 cm. Petitioner alleges discrimination and arbitrariness in so far as Exhibits P11, P13, P15 and P17 Measurement Certificates show overall vehicle length of 800 cms., 810 cms., 800 cms. and 780 cms., all being more than the approved length for TATA LP 1109 vehicle as per Exhibit P3; and these vehicles having been registered by Exhibits P12, P14, P16 and P18.

5. W.P.(C).Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468 of 2010 are with respect to two separate Goods Vehicles, again manufactured by M/s. Tata Motors Ltd., of model TATA SE 1613 TC, the registration of which were declined again for reason of the body built over the chassis having been extended by 15 cms beyond the chassis; by orders produced as Exhibit P5 in both the writ petitions. The appeals filed against those orders were also dismissed by Exhibit P6 orders produced in the said writ petitions.

6. W.P.(C).No.274 of 2012 was filed against the refusal to grant registration of a vehicle, which was re-modelled as a 'recovery vehicle'. The said vehicle was of Class 8.EICHER 10.80, manufactured by M/s. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. The registration of the said vehicle was refused on the ground that the vehicle, when altered as a 'recovery vehicle', was altered in an unauthorized manner by cutting the chassis of the vehicle by one feet at the rear end. The said order is produced as Exhibit P7 in the said writ petition.

7. For convenience,