BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:16/05/2008
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA
WRIT PETITION (MD)No.4482 OF 2008
and
M.P.NO.1 OF 2008
R. Ramasamy .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary
Ministry of Transport,
Chennai.
2. The Transport Commissioner,
Chennai 5.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Bye-pass road,
Madurai (South), Madurai.
4. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Road Transport and Shipping,
New Delhi. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of writ of mandamus for directing the third respondent to issue the
permanent driving license for the petitioner to drive two wheeler (TN58 M-2760)
and four wheeler (TN59AB 8894).
!For Petitioner ... Mr.R. Ramasamy
Party-in-person
^For Respondents 1 to 3 ... Mr.D. Gandhiraj
Govt. Advocate
Respondent-4 ... Mr.D. Sivaraman, ACGSC
:ORDER
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 Learner’s 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 contravention of Section 52(1). Reference has been made
to Section 8(4) and asserted that such licence to drive an invalid carriage can
be issued only to the persons owning the vehicles registered as invalid
carriages. In view of the above clarification issued by the Transport
Commissioner, the application filed by the petitioner for permission to alter
the vehicles as invalid carriages was returned as unentertaintable vide letter
dated 21.1.2008. It is further stated that as against such intimation, the
petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Transport
Commissioner. For the aforesaid reasons, it has been submitted that no relief
can be granted to the petitioner.
4. In course of hearing, this Court had felt the necessity of
impleading the Central Government as a party, which was accordingly suo motu
impleaded as a party and notice was accepted by Mr.D. Sivaraman. Since the
questions raised relate to interpretation of the provisions of law and no
factual dispute was involved, there was no necessity to wait for a formal
counter of the Central Government and the matter is taken up for final disposal
today on consent of the party-in-person as well as the counsels appearing for
the respondents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 has raised a
preliminary objection that the writ petition should not be entertained, as the
petitioner has got alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Transport
Commissioner. This objection cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the letter
dated 21.1.2008 written by the RTO clearly indicates that such reply was given
after obtaining the clarification from the Transport Commissioner. As a matter
of fact, the RTO has also extracted the clarification issued by the Transport
Commissioner. It is therefore obvious that even if the petitioner would file
any appeal before the Transport Commissioner, it would be an exercise in
futility inasmuch as the Transport Commissioner has already given an opinion in
one-way or the other. Therefore, this preliminary objection is not accepted.
6. The following questions arise for determination :-
(1) Whether any prior permission was required before the petitioner
effected the modification in the vehicles ?
(2) Whether the approval of the Automotive Research Association of India,
Pune, is required for the purpose of noting the modifications in the Certificate
of Registration? and
(3) Whether the vehicles can be treated as invalid carriages and driving
licence can be issued accordingly ?
7. For convenience, the first two questions are taken up together.
8. Before the advent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939 was in operation. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has also been amended from
time to time, more particularly by Act 27 of 2000. Since the changes made in
the Motor Vehicles Act from time to time have some bearing in considering the
questions raised, it would be necessary to extract and compare the necessary
provisions at the appropriate place. For convenience, the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as originally enacted and the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 as amended by Act 27 of 2000 are referred to as “Old Act”, “New Act”
and “Amended Act” respectively.
8.1 Section 32 of the Old Act is as follows:-
“32. Alteration in motor vehicle:- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall
so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
registration are no longer accurate, unless –
(a)he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he
resides of the alteration he proposes to make; and
(b)he has obtained the approval of the registering authority to make such
alteration:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any
change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or
removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per cent
of the weight entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-section
(1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post,
to the owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or
otherwise:
Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any
such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such
authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette authorize, subject to
such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less
than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to change
its engine number by replacing the engine thereof without the approval of the
registering authority.
(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the
approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under
sub-section (2) or by reason of any change in its engine number without such
approval under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen
days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering
authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate
of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that
particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.
(5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority
making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original
registering authority.
8.2 Section 52 of the New Act was as follows:-
“52. Alteration in motor vehicle.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall
so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
registration are no longer accurate, unless-
(a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose
jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is
normally kept as the case may be of the alteration he proposes to make; and
(b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make
such alteration:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making
any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition
or removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per
cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration:
Provided further that modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of
a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source
of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power or any other
fuel or source of energy other than liquid petroleum gas shall be treated as an
alteration but that shall be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) Where a registering authority receives a notice under sub-section (1),
it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post to the
owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or otherwise:
Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any
such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval such
authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize, subject to
such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less
than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to replace
the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority.
(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the
approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under
sub-section (2) or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval
under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of
the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority
within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of
registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that
particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.
(5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority
making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original
registering authority.
(6) No person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make
any alteration to the vehicle for which approval of the registering authority is
required under sub-section (1), except with the written consent of the
registered owner.”
8.3 Section 52 was amended by Act 27 of 2000. Section 52 of the Amended Act is
as follows:-
“52. Alteration in motor vehicle. – (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall
so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
registration are at variance with those originally specified by the
manufacturer:
Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the
engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by
different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural
gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by
fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to
such conditions as may be prescribed:
Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications,
conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such
conversion kits:
Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for
alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific
purpose.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize, subject to
such conditions as may be specified in the notification, and permit any person
owning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so
as to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without
the approval of registering authority.
(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the
approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine
without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall,
within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to
the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward
the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed
fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein.
(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority
making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original
registering authority.
(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and
(4) no person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement shall make any
alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered
owner.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “alteration” means a change
in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.”
8.4 A comparison of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section
32(1)(a) and (b) of the Old Act along with the proviso had been practically re-
enacted as Section 52(1)(a) and (b) of the New Act. However, in the New Act, a
second proviso was added which permitted modification of the engine for
facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel. Section 32(2) of the
Old Act along with the proviso was re-enacted as Section 52(2) of the New Act.
As per Section 32(1) and 32(2) of the Old Act, corresponding to Section 52(1)
and 52(2) of the new Act, before making any alteration, the owner was required
to give notice to the registering authority and obtain permission. The
registering authority was required to communicate its approval or disapproval
within seven days and if no such communication was served within the period of
seven days, approval of such authority to the proposed alteration was deemed to
have been given. Section 32(3) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(3) of
the New Act, contained an enabling provision whereunder the State Government
could authorize the owners having ten or more transport vehicles to change its
engine number by replacing such engine without the approval of the registering
authority. Section 32(4) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(4) of the
New Act, cast a duty on the owner of the vehicle to report the alteration made
with actual or deemed approval as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Old
Act corresponding to Section 52(2) of the New Act or, and without approval as
contemplated under Section 32(3) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(3)
of the New Act “in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered in
the certificate of registration”. Section 32(5) of the Old Act corresponding to
Section 52(5) of the New Act envisaged that the registering authority making
any such entry should communicate the details of the entry to the original
registering authority. Section 52(6) of the New Act contained a new provision
laying down that a person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement
cannot make the alterations contemplated in Section 52(1) of the New Act without
the written consent of the registered owner.
8.5 After amendment of Section 52 of the New Act under Act 27 of 2000, Section
52(1) has been retained as Section 52(1) with significant modification. It is
important to notice that the provisions contained in Section 32(1)(a) & (b) of
the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to
giving of notice and obtaining of approval of the registering authority have
been deleted in the Amended Act. The amended section does not contain any
provision relating to giving of notice or obtaining of approval. First proviso
to Section 52(1) of the New Act has also been deleted and second proviso to
Section 52(1) of the New Act relating to modification of engine has been re-
enacted as the first proviso to Section 52(1) of the Amended Act. Moreover, two
other provisos have been added to Section 52(1). Since the earlier provision in
Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to issuance of notice and
approval have been deleted, Section 52(2) of the New Act, which related to
deemed approval on expiry of seven days has also been deleted and Section 52(3)
of the New Act has been re-numbered as Section 52(2) of the Amended Act.
Section 52(4) of the New Act has been re-enacted with certain changes as Section
52(3) of the Amended Act requiring the owner to report regarding the alteration
to the registering authority. Under Section 52(4) of the New Act, the owner was
required to report about the alteration, made either with the approval or deemed
approval of the registering authority, or by reason of replacement of engine,
without such approval, to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he
resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority
together with the prescribed fee “in order that particulars of the alteration
may be entered therein”.
8.6 A minute examination of the provisions makes it clear that the expression
“particulars of the alteration may be entered therein” as contained in Section
52(4) of the New Act, now reads as “in order that particulars of the
registration may be entered therein” in the Amended Act. It is crystal clear
that the word “registration” in the Amended Act is an obvious typographical
mistake, which has been inadvertently incorporated instead of the word
“alteration”. What is intended is that the particulars of the alteration made
in a vehicle should be incorporated in the certificate of registration.
8.7 Sections 52(5) and 52(6) of the New Act, have been now re-enacted as
Sections 52(4) and 52(5) of the Amended Act respectively. The Amended Act,
however, contains an important explanation, which was absent in the Old Act or
the New Act. The explanation is to the effect that, for the purpose of Section
52, ” alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in
a change in its basic feature.
9. Section 52(1) of the Amended Act obviously is not very happily
worded. By altering the vehicle the particulars contained in the certificate of
registration cannot be variance with those specified by the manufacturers. The
certificate of registration contains some of the vital particulars of the
vehicles. The real meaning is that the particulars of alteration to be
incorporated in the Certificate of Registration as contemplated in Section 52(3)
of the Amended Act are at variance with those originally specified by the
manufacturer. When the provision is read in the light of the explanation, it is
obvious that changes or modification which do not result in change in basic
feature need not be considered as alteration within the meaning of Section 52 of
the Amended Act.
9.1 A careful reading of Section 52 of the Amended Act indicate as
follows :-
(1) “Alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which
results in a change in its basic feature (This is apparent from the
Explanation).
(2) Owner of a vehicle shall not alter the vehicle in such a manner that
particulars of the altered vehicle would be at variance with the particulars
specified by the manufacturer.
(3) However, engine or any part thereof can be modified for facilitating
its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy by fitment of a
conversion kit. This, however, is subject to the conditions as may be
prescribed by the rules. The Central Government may prescribe specifications,
conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such
conversion kits.
(4) The Central Government may grant exemption for the alteration of the
vehicle in a manner other than specified above for any specific purpose.
(5) The State Government is empowered to issue notification permitting any
person owning not less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle so as to
replace the engine with engine of the same make and type without the approval of
the registering authority.
(6) If any alteration is made in the vehicle without the approval of the
registering authority, the owner shall report such alteration to the registering
authority within 14 days together with the prescribed fee in order that
particulars of alteration made be entered in the certificate of registration.
10. The provisions contained in Section 52, as they stand now, do
not contemplate any specific prior permission for making any alteration, save
and except what is contemplated in the present Section 52(2). Moreover, Section
52(1) as it stands now contemplates that the owner of a motor vehicle should not
alter the vehicle in such a manner that the particulars of the alteration would
be at variance with the particulars originally specified by the Manufacturer.
Where the change in the structure of the vehicle does not have the effect of
changing the basic features of the vehicle, it does not come within the
prohibition contemplated in Section 52(1). The above becomes clear if reference
is made to the Explanation, which lays down that for the purpose of Section 52
“alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a
change in its basic feature.
11. The RTO in his letter has referred to the provisions contained
in Section 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b). A careful perusal of the provisions contained
in the Amended Act clearly indicate that the RTO has considered the matter in
the light of the unamended provisions. The provisions contained in Section 52
of the New Act, as already noticed, have undergone extensive amendment as per
Act 27 of 2000. The RTO has based his reply on the provisions contained in the
New Act before such amendment was effected by Act 27 of 2000. After such
amendment, there is no provision as 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b). It is apparent that
Section 52(1)(a), as it stood before amendment, now corresponds to Section 52(1)
of the Amended Act and 52(1)(b) is no longer there in the statute book.
11.1 A comparison of the relevant provisions contained in the Old Act and
the New Act with the provisions of the Amendment Act clearly indicates that the
Legislature has dispensed with the requirement of obtaining permission relating
to every change or modification effected in a motor vehicle. In fact the 1988
Act itself has been amended in such a manner as to make it unnecessary for
seeking permission to make such minor change or modification. Moreover, every
minor change or modification is not necessarily considered as an alteration
within the meaning of Section 52 of the Amended Act. In the present case, the
RTO has practically applied the provisions, which were available before the
amendment was effected in 2000, without taking note of such amendment.
12. Section 110(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to
make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor
vehicles with respect to all or any of the matters indicated.
12.1 Section 111(1) empowers the State Government to make rules regulating
the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with
respect to all matters other than the matters specified in Section 110(1).
13. Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 contains the
provisions relating to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor
vehicles. It is thus obvious that such Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules is co-relatable to the matters enumerated under Section 110(1) of the Act.
13.1 Rule 126 is to the following effect :-
“126. Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test.- On and from
the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993,
every manufacturer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers shall
submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the
Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the
Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or the
Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian
Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, and such other agencies as may be specified by
the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the
compliance of the provisions of the Act and these Rules.”
13.2 Reference has been made to Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules. Rule 126 has already been extracted. This Rule refers to the obligation
of the manufacturer of motor vehicles to submit prototype of the vehicle to be
manufactured for the test to certain specified agencies such as the Vehicle
Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the
Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or the
Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian
Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun. The purpose of submitting such prototype is
to obtain a certificate by the concerned agency as to the compliance of the
provisions of the Act and these Rules. As per Section 2(21-A) “manufacturer”
means a person who is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. It is thus
obvious that Rule 126 is applicable to the manufacturer who intends to
manufacture the vehicles. The provisions contained in such Rule obviously
cannot be made applicable to an individual owner of a vehicle, who gets the
vehicle modified after purchasing from the dealer.
14. Reference has also been made to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1989, which is framed in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38,
65, 95, 107, 111 and 138 read with section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Rule 101, 104 and 105 are extracted hereunder :-
“101. Alteration – notice form.- The Notice to the Registering Authority
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 52 shall be in Form NAMV and it
shall be sent in duplicate by registered post. The registering Authority shall
return a copy of the notice signifying its approval or disapproval in Part II
thereof.
104. Change of classification.- No alteration involving or likely to
involve a change in the type or classification of vehicle shall be regarded as
an alteration for the purpose of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 52
and prior approval of the Registering Authority shall be obtained for any such
alteration.
105. Vehicle to be produced.- The Registering Authority may, before
entering in the Registering Certificate particulars of any alteration or change
made in the vehicle, require the owner to produce the vehicle before itself or
any other person authorized by it for the purpose of inspection of the
alteration or the change made.”
15. In the counter filed by the respondents there is reference to
the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, more particularly Rule 105. Rule 105
merely contemplates that before entering the alteration or change in the
registering certificate, the vehicle is required to be produced for the purpose
of inspection of the alteration or the change made. In the present case, it is
not in dispute that in fact the vehicles of the petitioner have been inspected
by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on behalf of the registering authority.
15.1 The question is what is the purpose insisting on production of the vehicle
before the competent authority.
15.2 Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the registering
authority to refuse to register any motor vehicle, if such authority has reason
to believe that the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with
the requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.
15.3 Section 53(1)(a) empowers the competent authority to suspend the
registration of a vehicle, if such competent authority has reason to believe
that if any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction is in such a condition that
its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or fails to
comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Suspension of registration contemplated under Section 53(1)(a) is to remain in
vogue until the defects are rectified to the satisfaction of such authority.
15.4 Section 54 empowers such authority to cancel the registration when such
suspension of registration has continued without interruption for a period of
not less than six months. Under Section 55(3), the competent authority has
power to order examination of a motor vehicle and if satisfied that the vehicle
is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public
place would constitute a danger to the public and such vehicle is beyond
reasonable repair, to cancel registration after giving opportunity to the owner
to make representation.
15.5 The provisions, which are contained in Chapter IV relating to registration
of motor vehicles, have to be read along with Section 52. Section 52(3)
contemplates that whenever any alteration is made, the owner of the vehicle is
required to report such alteration to the competent authority. Rule 105
envisages that the vehicle is required to be produced before the competent
authority. Thus, if the competent authority comes to the conclusion that a
motor vehicle, which is altered before the registration, complies with the
requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, such vehicle may be
registered. On the other hand, such competent authority may refuse to register
any motor vehicle, if the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply
with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Similarly,
since registration of a vehicle can be suspended under Section 53 or cancelled
under Sections 54 and 55, if any alteration is made in respect of a vehicle
already registered, at the time of noting such alteration as contemplated under
Section 52(3), the competent authority can apply the very same standard and
refuse to note the particulars. In other words, if the competent authority
comes to the conclusion that the altered vehicle is mechanically defective or
fails to comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules or its use in a
public place would constitute a danger to the public and there is no possibility
of rectifying the defects, such competent authority can refuse to note the
alterations in the certificate of registration.
16. The next question is, whether the vehicles can be treated as
“invalid carriages” and driving licence can be issued accordingly.
17. Chapter II refers to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles.
Section 3 lays down the necessity for driving licence. Section 8 relates to
grant of learner’s licence. As per Section 8(4), a licensing authority has the
authority to refuse a learner’s licence if it appears that the applicant is
suffering from any disability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be
a source of danger for the public or to the passengers. The proviso however
specifically contemplates that a learner’s licence limited to driving an invalid
carriage may be issued if the applicant is fit to drive such a carriage.
Section 10(2)(c) contemplates that a learner’s licence or a driving
licence can be issued entitling the holder to drive an “invalid carriage”.
18. Chapter IV relates to Registration of Motor Vehicles. Section
41(3) provides that the registering authority shall issue a certificate of
registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in
such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
18.1 As per Section 41(4), in addition to the other particulars required to be
included in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of
the motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government specify by
notification in the Official Gazette.
18.2 In accordance with Section 41(4), the Central Government had issued a
notification dated 19.6.1992 specifying the types of motor vehicles. The table
contains the types of motor vehicles relatable to transport vehicles and non-
transport vehicles. Under the heading Non-Transport Vehicles, entry (iv) is
“invalid carriage”.
18.3 As per Section 2(18) the expression “invalid carriage” means a motor
vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for the use
of a person suffering some physical defect or disability, and used solely by or
for such person. The expression “adapted” has not been defined in the statute.
As per Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition, the word “adapt” is a verb, which
means “make suitable for a new use or purpose”.
18.4 The expression “adapted” has been used in various definition clauses
such as in Sections 2(14), 2(18), 2(22), 2(25), 2(26), 2(28), 2(29), 2(33),
2(35), 2(40) and 2(43). Meaning has to be ascribed to such expression keeping
in view the context in which it has been used. Though ordinarily the word
“adapted” can be considered as past tense of the verb “adapt”, at times such
expression “adapted” can be considered as adjectival. Understood in such a
sense, the expression can mean “suitable”.
18.5 In the context in which it has been used in Section 2(18) the word
“adapted” means suitable. It becomes more clear when the preceding expression
refers to “a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely
adapted”.
18.6 In several decisions, such expression “adapted” has been understood
to mean “suitable” or “suited”.
18.7 In AIR 1975 SC 17 (BOLANI ORES LTD. v. STATE OF ORISSA), it was
observed :-
“19. While dealing with the English cases it must not be forgotten that
the definition of “motor vehicle” in the Road Traffic Act imports the element of
intention into the definition for ascertaining whether a vehicle is a motor
vehicle. In Maddox v. Storer Lord Parker, C.J. was construing the word “adapted”
when used disjunctively with “constructed.” He observed:
“One can get illustration after illustration, on looking at the Act
itself, where ‘adapted’, when used disjunctively with ‘constructed’ must mean a
physical alteration, and, as it seems to me, other cases where the word
‘adapted’ alone is used and where it must be given the adjectival meaning of
being fit and apt for the purpose.”
But where the word “adapted” alone has been used such as in sub-paragraph (2) of
paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, he was of the
view that it was wholly inapt to mean “altered so as to make fit”. He asked “How
do you alter a motor-car so as to make it fit to carry not more than seven
passengers”? It is clearly there standing on its own, susceptible only of
meaning “fit and apt for the purpose.”
…
22. As usual references have been made to the Dictionaries but quite often
it is not possible to hold a dictionary in one hand and the statute to be
interpreted in the other for ascertaining the import and intent of the word or
expression used by Legislature. The shade of meaning of a word, its different
connotations and collocations which one finds in a dictionary does not relieve
us of the responsibility of having to make the ultimate choice of selecting the
right meaning. We choose that meaning which is most apt in the context, colour
and diction in which the word is used. The use of a dictionary ad lib without an
analysis of the entire Act, its purpose and its intent, for ascertaining the
meaning in which the Legislature could have used the word or expression may not
lead us to the right conclusion. With this caution before us for avoiding any of
the aforesaid methods which might lead to a possible incongruity, we will
examine the different facets to which our attention has been drawn.
23. The meaning of the word “adapted” in Section 2(18) of the Act is
itself indicated in Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution, which confers a power on the State to tax vehicles whether
propelled mechanically or not and uses the word “suitable” in relation to its
use on the roads. The words “adapted for use” must therefore be construed as
“suitable for use”. At any rate, words “adapted for use” cannot be larger in
their import by including vehicles which are not “suitable for use” on roads. In
this sense, the words “is adapted” for use have the same connotation as “is
suitable” or “is fit” for use on the roads.” (emphasis added)
18.8 Similar meaning was attributed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC
1371 (M/s. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD., v. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS).
18.9 In (2004) 6 SCC 210 (GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANOTHER v. ROAD ROLLERS OWNERS
WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS), the Supreme Court, while considering the
question as to whether a road roller is a motor vehicle within the meaning of
Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed:
“5. … Undoubtedly, a roadroller is meant for repairing roads. This
itself shows that it is adapted for use on roads. A roadroller is not capable
of being used off the road. Merely because its purpose is to repair roads does
not mean that it is not suitable or not adapted for use on roads. … So long
as it is a vehicle, which is mechanically propelled, and is adapted for use on
roads, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.”
18.10 From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that the expression
“adapted” has been used in different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which
carries the meaning of “suitable” or “capable of being used” on the road. It is
used as an “adjectival” expression rather than a verb.
19. In the present case, the vehicles in question, even though
originally designed and constructed in a particular manner, subsequently have
been designed and constructed specially for the use of a person suffering from
disability. It may be true that originally the vehicles had been designed,
constructed and manufactured in a normal manner. But, subsequently, those have
been specially designed and constructed for the use of a person suffering from
disability.
20. A reading of the counter of Respondents 1 to 3 gives the
impression that according to the respondents an “invalid carriage” is a motor
vehicle which is specially designed and constructed by a manufacturer and may
not include a normal vehicle which has been subsequently specially designed and
constructed by a mechanic in a workshop. There is nothing in Section 2(18)
which excludes the possibility of a vehicle being re-designed and re-constructed
by a mechanic for the use of a person suffering from disability. While
considering the question as to whether a vehicle can be registered as an invalid
carriage, the authority concerned may have to keep in mind the safety factor or
other relevant factors such as emission level. However, there is no warrant for
the conclusion that a vehicle originally manufactured cannot be specially re-
designed and reconstructed specially for the persons suffering from disability.
A manufacturer of a particular type of vehicle may not think of manufacturing
invalid carriage on account of economic factor such as lack of demand. In the
present case, it has been asserted by the petitioner that manufacture of invalid
carriage by Maruti has been stopped. It is not necessary to go into this
aspect. Even assuming that invalid carriages are still being manufactured, I
do not find there is any restriction that a normal vehicle cannot be redesigned
and reconstructed specially for the use of a person suffering from disability so
that such altered vehicle can be registered as “invalid carriage”. Similarly
there is no prohibition for re-registering a vehicle as “invalid carriage”
though it was registered otherwise initially.
21. The petitioner has also emphasised on the fact that the
manufacturers have stopped manufacturing vehicles specially designed for the
disabled persons obviously because of the economic considerations. Therefore,
a disabled person, who is desirous of driving a vehicle himself, would be unable
to do so unless necessary changes or modifications in the vehicle are permitted
to be done through private agencies.
22. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for
Respondents 1 to 3 that prayer in the writ petition is for issuing a direction
to the respondents to issue a driving licence and the letter communicated by the
RTO indicating return of the application to the petitioner has not been
specifically challenged by filing a writ petition for issuing Certiorarified
Mandamus.
22.1 The aforesaid submission, in my opinion, does not deserve any serious
consideration in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Even though
there is no specific prayer for quashing such letter, all the relevant facts and
circumstances are available on record. In fact, there is no factual aspect
required to be decided. Since all the necessary facts are on record, there is
no embargo on this Court to mould the relief. A court of law, more particularly
a court while dealing with the equitable jurisdiction envisaged under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, need not be considered as a chess board or an
obstacle course. The technical objections, which merely serve to defeat the
objective of rendering substantial justice, should be discouraged. If the
technical objection raised by the Government Advocate is to be accepted, the
petitioner would be forced to either amend the writ petition or file a fresh
writ petition which in the long run will not serve any useful purpose.
23. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions :-
(1) The Regional Transport Officer shall consider afresh the application
made by the petitioner for noting the modifications or changes made in the
vehicles in the Registration Certificate in the light of the observations
relating to the present position of law as discussed in the present judgment.
(2) The question of treating the vehicles as “invalid carriage” shall be
reconsidered in the light of the observations made.
(3) The Regional Transport Officer shall consider the question of issuance
of Learner’s licence and subsequently a driving licence in the light of the
observations made.
(4) An appropriate decision in respect of the above directions shall be
taken by the Regional Transport Officer as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
dpk
To
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Chennai.
2. The Transport Commissioner, Chennai 5.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Bye-pass road, Madurai (South), Madurai.
4. Secretary to Government,Union of India, Ministry of Road Transport
and Shipping, New Delhi.