Writ Petition C No.28702 of 2007 for quashing Circular No.7/2006 and the order passed on 3.7.2007 declining registration was filed.
beyond the chassis which was number adhering to the specifications given by the manufacturer of the vehicle.
In view of the companyflict in judgments in Writ Petition C No.29946 of 2006 and Writ Petition C No.8836 of 2007 regarding the issue of alteration whether alteration is permissible at variance with the manufacturers specification companytained in the prototype test certification, the matter was referred to a Division Bench of the High Court.
Pursuant thereto the Regional Transport Authorities did number grant permission to certain motor vehicles in view of the provisions companytained in section 52 and the Circular.
The validity of Circular No.7/2006 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Kerala to all the Registering Authorities stating that the body of the vehicle companystructed in violation of the prototype test certificate and which was number built in strict companypliance of the specifications given by the manufacturer are to be denied the registration.
The writ petitions have been allowed and orders passed by the Registering Authorities have been quashed.
As such several writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
In Writ Petition C No.29946 of 2006, the unladen weight of the vehicle before alteration was 2315 kg.
Besides, there were changes in the measurement of the body which resulted in declining the permission for registration.
Rule 104 requires that every motor vehicle, other than threewheelers and motorcycles shall be fitted with two red reflectors, one each on both sides at their rear.
The Central Government has framed the rules called Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 for short the Central Rules in exercise of Signature Not Verified the power companyferred under section 27 of the Act, and in exercise of powers Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2019.01.09 170539 IST Reason companyferred under Section 28 of the Act, the Kerala Government has framed the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 hereinafter referred to as the Kerala Rules .
Writ Petition C Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468/2010 were filed with respect to the denial of registration by the Registering Authorities as the body built over the chassis extended by a length of 15 cms.
Yet another Writ Petition C No.274 of 2012 was filed against the refusal to grant registration of a vehicle which was re modelled as a recovery vehicle altered in an unauthorised manner by cutting the chassis of the vehicle by one feet at the rear end which was number in companyformity with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Rules.
beyond the chassis.
from the extreme rear end of the chassis.
This Court has stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order on 16.4.2013.
In Writ Petition No.8836 of 2007, the length of the chassis of the vehicle as per prototype was 832.5 cm.
Similarly, in Writ Petition C No.1323 of 2010 and Writ Petition C No.1468 of 2010, the body was built over the chassis extended by 15 cm.
Rule 47 1 g of the Central Rules companytemplates on road worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the manufacturers and in Form 22A from the bodybuilders for applying for registration of the motor vehicles.
The High Court by the companymon judgment passed in the writ petitions came to the companyclusion that structural alteration is permissible as per the provisions of the Kerala Rules.
The vehicle had an extended length of 39 cms.
and the body was having an extension of 39 cms.
The view taken by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition C No.29946 of 2006 has been upheld hence the appeals have been preferred in this Court.
Every motorcycle shall be fitted with at least one red reflector at the rear.
The body can be built on a chassis in companypliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
In Writ Petition C No.29946 of 2006 decided on 16.1.2007 by the learned Single Judge it was held that Rule 126 of the Central Rules does number fetter the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities to intelligently exercise their discretion in terms of the Kerala Rules, in particular Rules 96, 103 and 261 whereas a companytrary view was taken by another Single Judge vide order dated 23.5.2007 in Writ Petition C No.8836 of 2007 and it was observed that the alteration in derogation of prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Rules cannot be approved.
Considering the importance of the matter numberice was issued to the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways through its Secretary, and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior companynsel was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court.
The technical specifications of model TATA bus chassis have specified length of 757.5 cm.
It is apparent from the factual matrix of Writ Petition C No.28702 of 2007 that it was a case of medium companymercial bus chassis.
The question involved is as to the permissible alteration in a Motor Vehicle in view of the provisions companytained in section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act , Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the effect of Rules 96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
ARUN MISHRA, J. Leave granted.
In Writ Petition C No.274 of 2012 the vehicle was re modeled as a recovery vehicle by cutting the chassis of the vehicle by one foot at the rear end.
Writ Petition C No.274 of 2012 was filed by the owner of the vehicle to question denial of registration in view of the aforesaid rule and the Circular.
The manufacturer or the authorities specified under Rule 126 do number provide for any prescription as to the dimensions or nature of the body that is to be built on the chassis.
After the body was built, it had a total length of 796.5 cm.
but after building the body it was found to have been extended to 885 cm.
and the same had been increased on alteration to 2715 kgs.
The registration was declined on the ground that the platform of the bus was extended to a distance of 37 cms.
