Important Points:
The very object of the amendment of sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000 is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyres of higher capacity- The amended sub-section (1) of Section 52 has specified the extent to which vehicle cannot be altered- The emphasis of sub-section (1) of Section 52 is not to vary the 'original specifications by the manufacturer'. Remaining particulars in a certificate of registration can be modified and changed and can be noted in the certificate of registration as provided in sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 52 of the Act and the Rules. The object and the clear intent of the amended Section 52 is that the vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those 'originally specified by the manufacturer'. The first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 52 permits modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, etc., such modification is permissible to be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

The petitioner, who is stated to be a Government Contractor, has purchased a Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab, as per Ext.P1 sale certificate dated 12.06.2018 issued by M/s.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 communication dated 10.10.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent Registering Authority, Muvattupuzha, whereby Ext.P5 application for registration made by the petitioner for registration of the said vehicle as Non-Transport Vehicle stands rejected; and for a declaration that he is entitled to get the vehicle purchased as per Ext.P1 sale certificate registered as 'Construction Equipment Vehicle'.

2. On 25.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. Thereafter, on 30.10.2018, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, the learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to file statement on behalf of the respondents. On 28.12.2018, this Court passed an interim order, extending the validity of the temporary registration till 09.01.2019, based on the averment in the affidavit accompanying to I.A.No.1 of 2018, that the temporary registration granted by the 2nd respondent will expire on 29.12.2018.

3. On 03.01.2019, the learned Senior Government Pleader has filed a statement dated 28.12.2018 of the 2nd respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. The petitioner has purchased a Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab, as per Ext.P1 sale certificate dated 12.06.2018. Though in Ext.P1 sale certificate issued in Form 21, by M/s.Sundram Iyengar & Sons Pvt. Ltd., it is certified that one new Mahindra Blazo 25 6x4 6C BSIV 5000 BOGIE Tipper Chassis Day Cab has been delivered to the petitioner, in the sale certificate the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Construction Equipment, i.e., Heavy Goods Vehicle Construction Equipment. Relying on Ext.P1 sale certificate, it is averred as follows in paragraph 2 of the writ petition;

“It is submitted that from Ext.P1, it is crystal clear that the nature and class of the vehicle is HGV Construction Equipment.”

6. The vehicle covered by Ext.P1 sale certificate was assigned with the temporary registration 'KL-07-CU-TEMP-5636' by the 3rd respondent Registering Authority, Ernakulam and the document marked as Ext.P3 is a copy of temporary certificate of registration dated 14.06.2018 issued in Form C.R.Tem, which was valid from 13.06.2018 to 12.07.2018. In Ext.P3, the class of vehicle is shown as HGV Goods Carrier Truck and type of body as Cabin and Chassis. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is averred as follows;

“It is submitted that the petitioner's vehicle was issued with a temporary registration by the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that in the temporary registration certificate, a mistake had been crept as to the class of vehicle as the same is described as HGV Goods Vehicle.”

7. After purchase, the vehicle has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump and in order to substantiate the said fact, the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P2 certificate dated 20.09.2018 (stated to have been issued in Form 22A) by M/s.Putzmeister Concrete Machines Pvt. Ltd. In Ext.P2 it is certified that the vehicle, which has been fabricated and mounted with Putzmeister make Boom Concrete Pump, complies with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder.

8. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition it is averred that, at no point of time, the vehicle purchased by the petitioner could be treated as a Transport Vehicle and a photograph of the vehicle mounted with Putzmeister Boom Concrete Pump is placed on record as Ext.P4. On 06.10.2018, the petitioner submitt