ORDER :

In Avishek Goenka v. Union of India [(2012) 5 SCC 321], after referring to the provisions under Rules 100, 104, 104A, 106, 119 and 120 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the Apex Court held that the Central Motor Vehicles Rules deal with every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle. In other words, the standards, sizes and specifications which the manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under the Rules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed to have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither be permissible nor possible for the court to read into these statutory provisions, what is not specifically provided for. The provisions of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only the appropriate manner of construction and maintenance of vehicle, but also the safety of other users of the road. The Apex Court held further that, the legislative intent attaching due significance to ‘public safety’ is evident from the object and reasons of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, the provisions of the said

Act and more particularly, the rules framed thereunder.

2. In Ma'Din Public School v. Regional Transport Officer [2019 (2) KLT 1011] this Court noticed that, despite the direction of the Division Bench in Siddique P.K.A. v. Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode [ILR 2013 (1) Ker 829], the State Government has not so far prescribed any conditions, in exercise of its powers under clause (xiii) of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , in order to prevent the conversion and use of stage carriages and contract carriages, which are discarded for road use practically and functionally, as Educational Institution Buses, for the purpose of transportation of school children, where safety of the children has to be the prime concern. The absence of any such condition imposed by the State, in exercise of its powers under clause (xiii) of sub-section (2) of Section 74 of the Act, prompted the petitioner in that writ petition to make an attempt to seek alteration of the class of the vehicle, which was lying idle since 01.09.2016, as it was not roadworthy, to use it as Educational Institution Bus, showing scant regard to the safety of the children, which should be the prime concern of a school, while providing transportation facility to its children.

3. In Ma'Din Public School , the Transport Commissioner, Kerala, who was suo motu impleaded as the additional 2nd respondent, was directed to take necessary steps to ensure that no application for altering the class of a stage carriage or a contract carriage as Educational Institution Bus shall be entertained by any Registering Authority in the State, without the vehicle being produced for inspection, along with its current records, and after satisfying that such request is in respect of a vehicle which is roadworthy. Further, the application for altering the class of vehicle shall contain the particulars of the alterations proposed, and the Registering Authority shall consider that request strictly in accordance with the provisions under Section 52 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Regional Transport Officer v. K. Jayachandra [(2019) 3 SCC 722] and that laid down by this Court in Raju Chacko v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KHC SN 32 : 2019 (1)