V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. It has become the fashion of the day to customize the motor cycles to suit the likes of buyers by removing silencers, mudguard and even sari guard. Such removal in a bid to add glamour to the vehicles often pose danger to the public about which the users are unmindful. The petitioner is the proud owner of a Royal Enfield Bullet Motor Cycle (2012 model) evidenced by Ext. P1 certificate of registration and the registration number of the vehicle is KL-07-BV-2841. The vehicle had a standard handle bar and a catalytic converter as silencer as per the proto type approved under R. 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the 'Rules' for short). However the vehicle was found 'fitted with a silencer that produced harsh heavy shell noise causing sound pollution and the original handle bar was found replaced with a non-standard one' appearing like a pipe. The vehicle was therefore intercepted by the third respondent Motor Vehicles Inspector on 18.02.2016 who issued Ext. P2 check report to the petitioner. The certificate of registration was retained by the third respondent and the petitioner was directed to bring back the vehicle after rectifying the defects within three days. The Writ Petition has been filed seeking to quash Ext. P2 check report and also to direct the third respondent to return the original of the certificate of registration withheld.

2. The Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents (who includes the State of Kerala and the Regional Transport Officer) justified the action of the third respondent Motor Vehicles Inspector. It was contended that such unscientific removal of the silencer and replacement of the handle bar made the vehicle prone to accidents. The removal of the silencer and the replacement of the handle bar violated S. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short) and R. 120 of the Rules. It was pointed out that the second respondent can even suspend the certificate of registration of the vehicle and that composition of offence is permissible under the Act. The certificate of registration of the vehicle was withheld only to ensure that the petitioner comes back after curing the defects and that it would be returned later.

3. I heard Mr. B.H. Mansoor, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Sanjeetha K.A., Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents.

4. Rule 120(1) of the Rules insists that every motor vehicle shall be fitted with a device referred to as a 'silencer' to reduce the noise made by the escape of exhaust gas from the engine. It reads as follows:-

"Every motor vehicle including agricultural tractor shall be fitted with a device (hereinafter referred to as a silencer) which by means of an expansion chamber or otherwise reduces as far as practicable, the noise that would otherwise be made by the escape of exhaust gases from the engine."

Rule 120(2) of the Rules specifies that every motor vehicle shall be constructed and maintained so as to conform to noise standards specified under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 when tested. The vehicle in the instant case was found fitted with a silencer that produced harsh heavy shell noise with a thunder effect causing sound pollution. The petitioner therefore stands the risk of being punished with fine for violating the standards prescribed in relation to control of noise and air pollution under S. 190(2) of the Act. It reads as follows:-

"Any person who drives or causes or allows to be driven, in any public place a motor vehicle, which violates the standards prescribed in relation to road safety, control of noise and air-pollution, shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine of one thousand rupees and for any second or subsequent offence with a fine of two thousand rupees."

The petitioner expressed his willingness to compound the offence as permitted under S.200 of the Act and his only concern seems to be to retrieve the certificate of registration of the vehicle from the