Kerala High Court
Shibu vs The Registering Authority on 3 April, 2007
Author: K.Balakrishnan Nair
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8531 of 2007(N)
1. SHIBU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.O.D.SIVADAS
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
Dated :03/04/2007
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------
W.P. (C) No.8531 of 2007
---------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2007.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the registered owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No.KL-9/N 561. It is a 1994 model vehicle. He purchased it on 2.1.2007. He wanted to convert the vehicle into a generator van for which he submitted an application before the respondent. The said application was rejected by Ext.P2. The reason given in Ext.P2 is as follows:
"Section 52 of M.V. Act prohibits alteration of vehicle as regards the changes in the structure of a vehicle resulting in change in its basic feature, originally specified by the Manufacture, and at variance with those in the certificate of registration."
2. The petitioner submits that the said finding cannot stand with Ext.P3 judgment of this Court, in which, the case of another similar vehicle was considered. So the petitioner prays for quashing Ext.P2 and allowing the writ petition in the light of Ext.P3 judgment.
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit. He has reiterated the stand taken in Ext.P2. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent also pointed out that the W.P.(C) No.8531/2007 2 vehicle involved in Ext.P3 judgment was a 15 year old vehicle whereas the petitioner's vehicle is only 13 years old. So she attempted to distinguish Ext.P3 judgment of this Court on facts. But I think the said distinguishing feature will not have any effect on the principles laid down in that decision. No one has a case that Ext.P3 is challenged in appeal or reversed. As long as Ext.P3 holds the field, - I am bound to follow that.
Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P2 is quashed. The respondent is directed to grant conversion of the vehicle as prayed for.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, Judge vns.