The main legal point established in the judgment is that minor changes not resulting in a change in the vehicle's basic features do not require specific prior permission, and vehicles can be re-designed and reconstructed for use by disabled persons.

Heard the petitioner in person, Mr. D. Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. D. Sivaraman for Respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner, a physically handicapped person, is unable to use his both legs. He has purchased a scooter under the brand name "Honda Activa", which has been registered as TN58 M 2760. Subsequently, through a private mechanic, the petitioner has added two supporting wheels only for the purpose of maintaining the balance. Similarly, the petitioner has purchased a Ford car registered as TN59AB 8894 which has been converted into hand operation mode through a private mechanic. The petitioner sought for information from the Regional Transport Office regarding the procedure to obtain license to enable the petitioner to drive the vehicles. The RTO replied that alteration in the vehicles should be approved by the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune. The petitioner then contacted the Automotive Research Association of India seeking approval of the specially designed vehicles for the disabled persons and the Automotive Research Association informed that such approval can be given to the company manufactured vehicles and not for the vehicles modified by private individuals.

2.1 The petitioner then applied to third respondent, namely, the Regional Transport Officer for issuance of Learners licence in respect of scooter and also the car. He also applied for permission for noting the alterations made in the two vehicles and had paid the fees on 9.10.2007. The third respondent had instructed the Brake Inspector to inspect the vehicle and on the basis of such report, third respondent forwarded along with the inspection report of the Brake Inspector to the Transport Commissioner, Respondent No.2 and sought for clarification. Thereafter, the third respondent intimated the petitioner regarding the objections raised by the Transport Commissioner and returned the application vide letter dated 21.1.2008.

2.2 In the above undisputed factual backdrop, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuing a direction to the third respondent to issue driving licence to the petitioner authorizing him to drive the two vehicles.

3. The gist of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent is as follows:-

The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and had reported the alteration in respect of LMV Car TN59 AB5894 and Motor Cycle TN 58M 2760 as "invalid carriages". On inspection of the vehicles, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I has noted that two additional wheels were fitted with the back wheel and the vehicle has been altered as invalid carriage. In respect of LMV car, the acceleration control has been mounted on the gear rod and below that, the brake control by means of leverage, the clutch is activated by pushing down the lever attached with the gear rod. These modifications have been effected by a private workshop. In view of Section 52(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall alter the vehicle at variance with those originally specified in the manufacture and under Section 52(1)(b) there was necessity of prior approval of the Registering Authority to make alterations. Similarly reference has been made to Rule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and it has been stated that a certificate is required to be issued by the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune. Two vehicles in question have already been registered by incorporating the specifications made by the manufacturer and the petitioner has altered without prior approval of the Registering Authority as contemplated under Sections 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b) and Rule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. When these aspects were brought to the notice of the Transport Commissioner and clarification was sought for, the Transport Commissioner has opined that the vehicles could not be treated as "invalid carriages" in contra