Chitambaresh, J.

1. The issue in this Writ Appeal pertains to the entry of alteration in the Certificate of Registration of a vehicle or in other words the registration of an altered vehicle. The Additional Registering Authority and the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector are termed as 'the registering authority' and 'the vehicle inspector' hereafter for brevity.

2. The appellant is the registered owner of a goods carriage vehicle (Mahindra Load King Super) bearing registration number KL-10T 807 covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration. The appellant applied for sanction to alter the vehicle by retro fitment of tipper mechanism in order to use the goods vehicle as a tipper lorry. The registering authority rejected the application by Ext.P2 order stating that the alteration would be at variance with the particulars specified by the manufacturer. The said order was set aside in W.P.(C) No.13671/2002 filed by the appellant by Ext.P3 judgment directing reconsideration of the issue. The registering authority thereafter accorded sanction by Ext.P4 order further directing the vehicle to be produced after alteration before the Vehicle Inspector. The appellant contends that he had spent Rs.1,60,000/-for alteration of the vehicle evidenced by Ext.P5 receipt issued by the body builder and engineer.

3. The registering authority however refused to register the altered vehicle by Ext.P6 order on the ground that its basic features are changed even affecting its stability prejudicially. It was stated therein that the chassis of the vehicle is designed to bear the load distributed equally unlike in a tipper lorry designed to take load at a single point. The revised order of the registering authority was also set aside in W.P.(C) No.25184/2012 by Ext.P7 judgment directing reconsideration of the issue. The vehicle was thereafter inspected by the vehicle inspector who reported that the alteration of the vehicle cannot be approved. The registering authority on the basis of the report reiterated its stand in not entering the alteration of the vehicle in its certificate of registration by Ext.P8 order. The said order was not interfered with in W.P.(C) No.7660/2013 by Ext.P9 judgment wherein the appellant was relegated to an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner.

4. Ext.P10 appeal accordingly filed by the appellant was rejected by Ext.P11 order on the premise that the chassis of the vehicle is not an approved tipper chassis variant. The challenge to the appellate order in W.P (C) No.15802/2013 by the appellant failed and hence this Writ Appeal asserting that the alteration of the vehicle is sanctioned by law. The appellant placed heavy reliance on Jayachandran. K and others v. Regional Transport Officer and others [2012 (4) KLT 729] in support of his contentions. The appellant pointed out that alteration of the vehicle was carried out after obtaining prior approval of the registering authority by Ext.P4 order. It is the case of the appellant that sanction cannot be refused thereafter to register the altered vehicle especially when he has expended considerable amount. The respondents on the other hand maintained that the impugned orders of the authorities in refusing to register the altered vehicle are well founded.

5. We heard Mr. C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. P.I. Davis, Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

6. Section 52(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) after amendment by Act 27 of 2000 does not speak of prior approval of the registering authority to make alteration. Section 52(1) of the Act prohibits the alteration of the vehicle in such a manner that they are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Rules 96 and 103 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 ('the Rules' for short) cast a duty on the authorities to inspect the vehicle after alteration. The registering authority in the instant case had called for a report from the