IMPORTANT POINTS
The petitioner's vehicle is fitted with lighting devices other than those specifically provided under the provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. The entire glass area of the side and rear windows are fixed with 'cloth curtains'. Therefore, in view of the provisions under sub-rule (1) of Rule 96 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, the petitioner's vehicle which does not comply with the provisions of Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, cannot be allowed to be used in any public place.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is the registered owner of a 2006 model Tempo Traveller Ambulance manufactured by M/s.Bajaj Tempo Ltd. [name changed as 'M/s.Force Motors Ltd.' in the year 2005 and later the brand name of the vehicle changed as 'Force Traveller'] bearing registration No.KL-40/2860, covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration issued by the 1st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, who is the Additional Registering Authority, Thodupuzha. In Ext.P1 certificate of registration, the class of vehicle is shown as 'LMV - Ambulance' and 'type of body' as 'Saloon'. The unladen weight of the vehicle is 2115kg', the gross vehicle weight is 3510kg' and the wheelbase is 3350mm'. By Ext.P2 order dated 27.09.2018 of the 1st respondent Joint Regional Transport Officer, the petitioner's application dated 30.08.2018 for alteration of the vehicle as 'Hearse Ambulance' [sic: 'Hearse Van'] was rejected on the ground that, as per Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer, and as per Circular No.21/2016 no owner can change the class of vehicle as per notification No. S.O.1248(E) dated 05.11.2004 issued by the Central Government.

2. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order by filing Appeal No.213 of 2018 before the 2nd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner, which ended in dismissal by Ext.P5 order dated 19.02.2019, holding that the request made by the petitioner for alteration is impermissible under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence there is no irregularity in Ext.P2 order of the 1st respondent Additional Registering Authority in rejecting the application for alteration. In Ex.P5 order, the Appellate Authority has placed reliance on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandra [(2019) 3 SCC 722].

3. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 order dated 27.09.2018 of the 1st respondent and Ext.P5 order dated 19.02.2019 of the 2nd respondent, taking note of Ext.P6 clarificatory communication dated 28.02.2019 of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, on the subject 'alteration in motor vehicles'. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to reclassify the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 certificate of registration as 'Hearse Ambulance' [sic: 'Hearse Van'] and to collect tax as prescribed in Serial No.15 of the Schedule attached to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1976, as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016.

4. On 09.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3 and sought time to file counter affidavit. Respondents were granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit and the petitioner was directed to file reply affidavit within two weeks thereafter. On 13.06.2019, a counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

5. On 14.06.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court noticed that the vehicle in question is a Force Traveller Ambulance manufactured by M/s.Force Motors Ltd. with 'monocoque body structure', with a seating capacity of 10. As evident from Ext.P4 photograph, while altering the vehicle, the petitioner has altered the 'B' pillar, 'C' pillar, etc., in order to increase the size of the side windows. These pillars provide structural support for the roof panel of the vehicle, which is a major factor in meeting the safety and crash standards. The petitioner has also made extensive alterations on the rear door of the vehicle, involving structural alterations. By the order da