Important points:
" A `Heavy Goods Vehicle` under `Category N3` cannot be altered at variance with the specifications of the manufacturer, as contained in the Prototype Test Certification, and used or registered as a `Construction Equipment Vehicle`, after mounting a `Boom Concrete Pump`, and classifying the vehicle as `Non-Transport Vehicle`.
" The vehicle owner is not required to get the permissible alterations, as mentioned above, recorded in the certification of registration-The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has made clear in the communication dated 28.02.2019 that, the States may take necessary action against other unauthorised modification on the motor vehicles.
" It is open for the Central Government to specify by notification in the Official Gazette, to include in the certificate of registration the type of vehicle having regard to the design, construction and use of motor vehicle, as specified under sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act- Every manufacturer has to comply with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and the utility of the vehicle depends upon the approved test by the competent agency.

1. The 1st petitioner is a company engaged in the field of infrastructure development and the 2nd petitioner is the Chairman of that company. The petitioners have filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, Perumbavoor to grant them permission to fix Transit Mixer on their Taurus Tippers covered by Exts.P1 to P1(g) certificates of registration. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to accept Ext.P2 representation and consider the same within a time fame to be fixed by this Court.

2. On 14.12.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the petitioners were directed to produce the particulars regarding the nature of alterations required and also the approval stated to have been obtained from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI), along with application to accept additional document. The learned Senior Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3. On 18.12.2018, the petitioners have filed I.A No.1/2018 to accept the tax invoice dated 27.10.2018 and 30.10.2018, regarding purchase of Concrete Mixers with Model No.AM7SHC2, issued by M/s. Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt. Ltd. as Exts.P4 to P4(c); and also the certificate issued by M/s. Schwing Stetter (India) Pvt. Ltd. regarding mounting of Concrete Mixer in the vehicles covered by Exts.P1(c) to P1(f) certificates of registration, as Exts.P5 to P5(c).

4. On 23.01.2019, the 2nd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer has filed a statement opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

5. On 07.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order;

“The issue raised in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner can be granted permission to fix transit mixers on the vehicles covered by Ext.P1 to P1(g) series of certificate of registrations. As evident from Exts.P1 to P1(g) series of certificate of registrations, the vehicles are Leyland 2518 T/4 Taurus Tippers.

The learned Senior Government Pleader shall get necessary instructions from the 2nd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer as to the technical specifications of the aforesaid variant and also whether the manufacturer is offering any variant of that model with transit mixer. If any such variant is available, instructions shall also be obtained as to the technical specifications of that variant.

6. On 23.02.2019, the 2nd respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer has filed an additional statement producing therewith Annexure R2(a) series of photographs of Ashok Leyland 2518 C/4 model Transit Mixer; Annexure R2(b) technical specifications of Ashok Leyland U-2518 R/1, R/2 Transit Mixer and Annexure R2(c) technical specifications of Ashok Leyland 2518 T/4 Tipper.

7. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit to the statement filed by the 2nd respondent. On 01.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for further consideration, this Court passed the following order;

“The learned Senior Government Pleader, after making specific reference to the averments in the additional statement of the 1st respondent would point out that the technical specification of the petitioner's vehicle with Model No.2518 T/4, manufactured by Ashok Leyland is entirely different from the transit mixer variant of the very same manufacturer with Model No.U-2518 R/1 and U2518 R/2.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader would also place reliance on the judgment of this Court in Raju Chacko v. State of Kerala (2019 (1) KLT 668).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a short time to file reply affidavit to the additional statement filed by the 2nd respondent.”

8. On 14.03.2019, the petitioners have filed reply affidavit to the additional statement filed by the 2nd respondent, producing therewith