High Court Kerala High Court

Sree Narayana Metallurgical … vs The Addl. Registering Authority on 15 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sree Narayana Metallurgical … vs The Addl. Registering Authority on 15 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21272 of 2008(G)



1. SREE NARAYANA METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE ADDL. REGISTERING AUTHORITY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.MANHU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/07/2008

 O R D E R
                          ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

                         ===============
                     W.P.(C) NO. 21272 OF 2008 G
                    ====================

                 Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008

                              J U D G M E N T

Ext.P5 is the order under challenge.

2. By Ext.P5, an application made by the petitioner for alteration

of the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL 51/7919 from an open body one to a

closed one has been rejected. The reason for rejection is that such

alteration is impermissible in terms of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988.

3. An issue identical to this has been considered by a learned

Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.29946/06, a copy of which is Ext.P6.

After adverting to the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules, the

learned Judge has taken the view that by the alteration, unless there is a

change in the basic feature of the vehicle, Section 52 of the Act is not

attracted to the alteration sought for.

4. In my view, the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment apply

to the facts of this case as the alteration sought does not affect the basic

WPC 21272/08
:2 :

feature of the vehicle in question.

In view of this, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 and

directing that the respondent shall reconsider the matter in the light of

Ext.P6 judgment of this court, a copy of which will be produced by the

petitioner, orders as above shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp