Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 82014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (REGISTERING AUTHORITY), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. – Appellant
Versus
VINCENT AGED 45 YEARS SABU BHAVAN, THEKKEKKARA VEEDU, KODUNGANNOOR P.O., VATTIYOORKKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 013 – Respondent
WA 1267/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.GP, SRI.R.RENJITH, SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY
For the Respondents: None mentioned
Alterations to vehicles must not deviate from original manufacturer specifications for registration, reinforcing public safety and environmental protection as legislative intents.
Headnote:(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 52 - Writ appeal challenging the Single Judge's decision to quash orders of the Regional Transport Officer and Deputy Transport Commissioner regarding vehicle registration. The Single Judge's order relied on a prior Division Bench judgment which was later reversed by the Apex Court, establishing that alterations to vehicles must not deviate from original manufacturer specifications for registration purposes. (Paras 8, 9, 18)
(B) The court emphasized that alterations which change the particulars in the registration certificate are prohibited, reinforcing public safety and environmental protection as legislative intents behind the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2000. (Paras 13, 17)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition was filed by the first respondent seeking to quash orders denying vehicle registration based on alterations made contrary to manufacturer specifications. The learned Single Judge granted interim relief, which led to the vehicle being registered. The appellants contested this decision, leading to the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned judgment could not be sustained in law due to the Apex Court's ruling, necessitating reconsideration of the registration appeal in light of the new legal standards.
Issues: The main issue was whether the learned Single Judge's judgment should be interfered with in light of the Apex Court's reversal of the Division Bench decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prior ruling allowing alterations contrary to manufacturer specifications was no longer valid, mandating strict adherence to the amended provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Result: The writ appeal was allowed, and the previous judgment was set aside, directing the Appellate Authority to reconsider the vehicle registration.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the parties and procedural history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. discussion on the need for reconsideration of the case. (Para 7 , 19) |
| 3. analysis of the legal framework regarding vehicle alterations. (Para 8 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. final order directing reconsideration of the appeal. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C) No.30505 of 2012 have filed this writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.04.2013 in W.P.(C)No.30505 of 2012. The 1st respondent herein filed that writ petition invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 order dated 15.06.2012 of the 1st respondent Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.P8 order dated 29.10.2012 of the 3rd respondent Deputy Transport Commissioner (South Zone), Thiruvananthapuram; a declaration that the 1st respondent the Registering Authority is duty bound to register the vehicle covered by Ext.P1 sale letter in Form 21 dated 19.05.2012, in view of Ext.P2 confirmation issued by the manufacturer regarding the genuineness of Form 22, Ext.P5 certificate issued by the Vehicles Research and Development Establishment dated 23.07.2012 and Ext.P9 letter dated 29.10.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent Transport Commissioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Registering Authority to register the vehicles covered by Ext.P1 statement under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there under. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge granted an interim order dated 15.01.2013. Thereafter the writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 05.04.2013, relying on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Jayachandran v. Regional Transport Officer [2012 (4) KLT 729]. The judgment dated 05.04.2013 of the learned Single Judge reads thus:
“The vehicle has already been registered pursuant to the interim order in this writ petition. Such registration is in order in view of the Jayachandran vs. Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur [2012 (4) KLT 729] . The registration already granted shall be treated to be valid as a regular registration. The writ petition is disposed of.”
2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants-respondents 1 to 3 are before this Court in this writ appeal.
3. This appeal was one filed along with C.M.Application No.677 of 2013 for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the order dated 23.08.2013.
4. On 29.08.2013, when this writ appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. Since the Apex Court has granted an order of stay in the Special Leave Petition filed by the State against the judgment in Jayachandran [2012 (4) KLT 729], the Division Bench granted an order of stay, as sought for in this writ appeal. In that order, it was made clear that as the permanent registration was already granted to the benefit of the writ petitioner, status quo shall be maintained.
5. On 09.06.2020, when this writ appeal came up for consideration, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the 1st respondent had transferred contract carriage bearing Registration No.KL-01/BJ-8791 to one Wilson T, with effect from 13.03.2018. In such circumstances, the appellants were directed to take necessary steps to amend the cause title. Pursuant to that direction, appellants filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 for impleading the present registered owner of the vehicle as additional 3rd respondent. That application was allowed by a separate order dated 09.08.2024 and the additional 3rd respondent entered appearance through counsel.
6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The issue that requires consideration in this writ appeal is as to whether any interference is warranted in the judgment of the learned Single
