{"id":21608,"date":"2008-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008"},"modified":"2015-02-05T12:30:12","modified_gmt":"2015-02-05T07:00:12","slug":"r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:16\/05\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA\n\nWRIT PETITION (MD)No.4482 OF 2008\nand\nM.P.NO.1 OF 2008\n\nR. Ramasamy\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..  Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Secretary\n    Ministry of Transport,\n    Chennai.\n\n2. The Transport Commissioner,\n    Chennai 5.\n\n3. The Regional Transport Officer,\n    Bye-pass road,\n    Madurai (South), Madurai.\n\n4. Union of India,\n    Rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n    Ministry of Road Transport and Shipping,\n    New Delhi.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..  Respondents\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the\nissuance of writ of mandamus for directing the third respondent to issue the\npermanent driving license for the petitioner to drive two wheeler (TN58 M-2760)\nand four wheeler (TN59AB 8894).\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t       ... Mr.R. Ramasamy\n\t\t\t\t   Party-in-person\n^For Respondents 1 to 3\t       ... Mr.D. Gandhiraj\n\t\t\t\t   Govt. Advocate\t\n Respondent-4\t\t       ... Mr.D. Sivaraman, ACGSC\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tHeard the petitioner in person, Mr.D. Gandhi Raj, Government
\nAdvocate, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr.D. Sivaraman for Respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The petitioner, a physically handicapped person, is unable to use
\nhis both legs.    He has purchased a scooter under the brand name “Honda
\nActiva”, which has been registered as TN58 M 2760.  Subsequently, through a
\nprivate mechanic, the petitioner has added two supporting wheels only for the
\npurpose of maintaining the balance.  Similarly, the petitioner has purchased a
\nFord car registered as TN59AB 8894 which has been converted into hand operation
\nmode through a private mechanic.  The petitioner sought for information from the
\nRegional Transport Office regarding the procedure to obtain license to enable
\nthe petitioner to drive the vehicles. The RTO replied that alteration in the
\nvehicles should be approved by the Automotive Research Association of India,
\nPune.  The petitioner then contacted the Automotive Research Association of
\nIndia seeking approval of the specially designed vehicles for the disabled
\npersons and the Automotive Research Association informed that such approval can
\nbe given to the company manufactured vehicles  and not for the vehicles modified
\nby private individuals<\/p>\n
2.1 The petitioner then applied to third respondent, namely, the Regional
\nTransport Officer for issuance of Learner’s licence in respect of scooter and
\nalso the car.  He also applied for permission for noting the alterations made in
\nthe two vehicles and had paid the fees on 9.10.2007.  The third respondent had
\ninstructed the Brake Inspector to inspect the vehicle and on the basis of such
\nreport, third respondent forwarded along with the inspection report of the Brake
\nInspector to the Transport Commissioner, Respondent No.2 and sought for
\nclarification.  Thereafter, the third respondent intimated the petitioner
\nregarding the objections raised by the Transport Commissioner and returned the
\napplication vide letter dated 21.1.2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.2  In the above undisputed factual backdrop, the petitioner has filed the writ
\npetition for issuing a direction to the third respondent to issue driving
\nlicence to the petitioner authorizing him to drive the two vehicles.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. The gist of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent
\nis as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and had reported the
\nalteration in respect of LMV Car TN59 AB5894 and Motor Cycle TN 58M 2760 as
\n“invalid carriages”.  On inspection of the vehicles, the Motor Vehicles
\nInspector Grade I has noted that two additional wheels were fitted with the back
\nwheel and the vehicle has been altered as invalid carriage.  In respect of LMV
\ncar, the acceleration control has been mounted on the gear rod and below that,
\nthe brake control by means of leverage, the clutch is activated by pushing down
\nthe lever attached with the gear rod.  These modifications have been effected by
\na private workshop.  In view of Section 52(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no
\nowner of a motor vehicle shall alter the vehicle at variance with those
\noriginally specified in the manufacture and under Section 52(1)(b) there was
\nnecessity of prior approval of the Registering Authority to make alterations.
\nSimilarly reference has been made to Rule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
\nRules, 1989 and it has been stated that a certificate is required to be issued
\nby the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune.  Two vehicles in question
\nhave already been registered by incorporating the specifications made by the
\nmanufacturer and the petitioner has altered without prior approval of the
\nRegistering Authority as contemplated under Sections 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b) and
\nRule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 126 of the
\nCentral Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.  When these aspects were brought to the
\nnotice of the Transport Commissioner and clarification was sought for, the
\nTransport Commissioner has opined that the vehicles could not be treated as
\n“invalid carriages” in contravention of Section 52(1).  Reference has been made
\nto Section 8(4) and asserted that such licence to drive an invalid carriage can
\nbe issued only to the persons owning the vehicles registered as invalid
\ncarriages. In view of the above clarification issued by the Transport
\nCommissioner, the application filed by the petitioner for permission to alter
\nthe vehicles as invalid carriages was returned as unentertaintable vide letter
\ndated 21.1.2008.  It is further stated that as against such intimation, the
\npetitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Transport
\nCommissioner.  For the aforesaid reasons, it has been submitted that no relief
\ncan be granted to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. In course of hearing, this Court had felt the necessity of
\nimpleading the Central Government as a party, which was accordingly suo motu
\nimpleaded as a party and notice was accepted by Mr.D. Sivaraman.  Since the
\nquestions raised relate to interpretation of the provisions of law and no
\nfactual dispute was involved, there was no necessity to wait for a formal
\ncounter of the Central Government and the matter is taken up for final disposal
\ntoday on consent of the party-in-person as well as the counsels appearing for
\nthe respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 has raised a
\npreliminary objection that the writ petition should not be entertained, as the
\npetitioner has got alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Transport
\nCommissioner.  This objection cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the letter
\ndated 21.1.2008 written by the RTO clearly indicates that such reply was given
\nafter obtaining the clarification from the Transport Commissioner.  As a matter
\nof fact, the RTO has also extracted the clarification issued by the Transport
\nCommissioner.  It is therefore obvious that even if the petitioner would file
\nany appeal before the Transport Commissioner, it would be an exercise in
\nfutility inasmuch as the Transport Commissioner has already given an opinion in
\none-way or the other.  Therefore, this preliminary objection is not accepted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.  The following questions arise for determination :-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) Whether any prior permission was required before the petitioner
\neffected the modification in the vehicles ?\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Whether the approval of the Automotive Research Association of India,
\nPune, is required for the purpose of noting the modifications in the Certificate
\nof Registration? and
\n\t(3) Whether the vehicles can be treated as invalid carriages and driving
\nlicence can be issued accordingly ?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. For convenience, the first two questions are taken up together.\n<\/p>\n
8. Before the advent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1939 was in operation.  The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has also been amended from
\ntime to time, more particularly by Act 27 of 2000.  Since the changes made in
\nthe Motor Vehicles Act from time to time have some bearing in considering the
\nquestions raised, it would be necessary to extract and compare the necessary
\nprovisions at the appropriate place.    For convenience, the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1939, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as originally enacted and the Motor Vehicles
\nAct, 1988 as amended by Act 27 of 2000 are referred to as “Old Act”, “New Act”
\nand “Amended Act” respectively.\n<\/p>\n
      8.1  Section 32 of the Old Act is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“32. Alteration in motor vehicle:-  (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall
\nso alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
\nregistration are no longer accurate, unless –\n<\/p>\n
(a)he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he
\nresides of the alteration he proposes to make; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)he has obtained the approval of the registering authority to make such
\nalteration:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any
\nchange in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or
\nremoval of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per cent
\nof the weight entered in the certificate of registration.
\n\t(2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-section
\n(1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post,
\nto the owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or
\notherwise:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any
\nsuch communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such
\nauthority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given.
\n\t(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State
\nGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette authorize, subject to
\nsuch conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less
\nthan ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to change
\nits engine number by replacing the engine thereof without the approval of the
\nregistering authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the
\napproval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under
\nsub-section (2) or by reason of any change in its engine number without such
\napproval under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen
\ndays of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering
\nauthority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate
\nof registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that
\nparticulars of the alteration may be entered therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority
\nmaking any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original
\nregistering authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.2 Section 52 of the New Act was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“52. Alteration in motor vehicle.- (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall
\nso alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
\nregistration are no longer accurate, unless-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose
\njurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is
\nnormally kept as the case may be of the alteration he proposes to make; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make
\nsuch alteration:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making
\nany change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition
\nor removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per
\ncent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration:
\n\tProvided further that modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of
\na vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source
\nof energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power or any other
\nfuel or source of energy other than liquid petroleum gas shall be treated as an
\nalteration but that shall be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
\n\t(2) Where a registering authority receives a notice under sub-section (1),
\nit shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post to the
\nowner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or otherwise:
\n\tProvided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any
\nsuch communication within the said period of seven days, the approval such
\nauthority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given.
\n\t(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a State
\nGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize, subject to
\nsuch conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less
\nthan ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to replace
\nthe engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority.
\n\t(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the
\napproval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under
\nsub-section (2) or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval
\nunder sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days  of
\nthe making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority
\nwithin whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of
\nregistration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that
\nparticulars of the alteration may be entered therein.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority
\nmaking any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original
\nregistering authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(6) No person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make
\nany alteration to the vehicle for which approval of the registering authority is
\nrequired under sub-section (1), except with the written consent of the
\nregistered owner.”\n<\/p>\n
8.3 Section 52 was amended by Act 27 of 2000.  Section 52 of the Amended Act is
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“52. Alteration in motor vehicle. – (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall
\nso alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of
\nregistration are at variance with those originally specified by the
\nmanufacturer:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the
\nengine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by
\ndifferent type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural
\ngas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by
\nfitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to
\nsuch conditions as may be prescribed:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications,
\nconditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such
\nconversion kits:\n<\/p>\n
\tProvided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for
\nalteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specific
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State
\nGovernment may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorize, subject to
\nsuch conditions as may be specified in the notification, and permit any person
\nowning not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by him so
\nas to replace the engine thereof with engine of the same make and type, without
\nthe approval of registering authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the
\napproval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine
\nwithout such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall,
\nwithin fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to
\nthe registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward
\nthe certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed
\nfee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein.
\n\t(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority
\nmaking any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original
\nregistering authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and
\n(4) no person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement shall make any
\nalteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered
\nowner.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation.- For the purpose of this section, “alteration” means a change
\nin the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.4  A comparison of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section
\n32(1)(a) and (b) of the Old Act along with the proviso had been practically re-
\nenacted as Section 52(1)(a) and (b) of the New Act.  However, in the New Act, a
\nsecond proviso was added which permitted modification of the engine for
\nfacilitating its operation by a different type of fuel.  Section 32(2) of the
\nOld Act along with the proviso was re-enacted  as Section 52(2) of the New Act.
\nAs per Section 32(1) and 32(2) of the Old Act, corresponding to Section 52(1)
\nand 52(2) of the new Act, before making any alteration, the owner was required
\nto give notice to the registering authority and obtain permission.  The
\nregistering authority was required to communicate its approval or disapproval
\nwithin seven days and if no such communication was served within the period of
\nseven days, approval of such authority to the proposed alteration was deemed to
\nhave been given.  Section 32(3) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(3) of
\nthe New Act, contained an enabling provision whereunder the State Government
\ncould authorize the owners having ten or more transport vehicles to change its
\nengine number by replacing such engine without the approval of the registering
\nauthority.  Section 32(4) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(4) of the
\nNew Act, cast a duty on the owner of the vehicle to report the alteration made
\nwith actual or deemed approval as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Old
\nAct corresponding to Section 52(2) of the New Act or, and without approval as
\ncontemplated under Section 32(3) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(3)
\nof the New Act “in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered in
\nthe certificate of registration”.  Section 32(5) of the Old Act corresponding to
\nSection 52(5) of the New Act envisaged  that the registering authority making
\nany such entry should communicate the details of the entry to the original
\nregistering authority.  Section 52(6) of the New Act contained a new provision
\nlaying down that a person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement
\ncannot make the alterations contemplated in Section 52(1) of the New Act without
\nthe written consent of the registered owner.\n<\/p>\n
8.5 After amendment of Section 52 of the New Act under Act 27 of 2000, Section
\n52(1) has been retained as Section 52(1) with significant modification.  It is
\nimportant to notice that the provisions contained in Section 32(1)(a) & (b) of
\nthe Old Act corresponding to Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to
\ngiving of notice and obtaining of  approval of the registering authority have
\nbeen deleted in the Amended Act.  The amended section does not contain any
\nprovision relating to giving of notice or obtaining of approval.  First proviso
\nto Section 52(1) of the New Act has also been deleted and second proviso to
\nSection 52(1) of the New Act relating to modification of engine has been re-
\nenacted as the first proviso to Section 52(1) of the Amended Act.  Moreover, two
\nother provisos have been added to Section 52(1).  Since the earlier provision in
\nSection 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to issuance of notice and
\napproval have been deleted, Section 52(2) of the New Act, which related to
\ndeemed approval on expiry of seven days has also been deleted and Section 52(3)
\nof the New Act has been re-numbered as Section 52(2) of the Amended Act.
\nSection 52(4) of the New Act has been re-enacted with certain changes as Section
\n52(3) of the Amended Act requiring the owner to report regarding the alteration
\nto the registering authority.  Under Section 52(4) of the New Act, the owner was
\nrequired to report about the alteration, made either with the approval or deemed
\napproval of the registering  authority, or by reason of replacement of engine,
\nwithout such approval, to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he
\nresides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority
\ntogether with the prescribed fee “in order that particulars of the alteration
\nmay be entered therein”.\n<\/p>\n
8.6 A minute examination of the provisions makes it clear that the expression
\n“particulars of the alteration may be entered therein” as contained in Section
\n52(4) of the New Act, now reads as “in order that particulars of the
\nregistration may be entered therein” in the Amended Act.  It is crystal clear
\nthat the word “registration” in the Amended Act is an obvious typographical
\nmistake, which has been inadvertently incorporated instead of the word
\n“alteration”.  What is intended is that the particulars of the alteration made
\nin a vehicle should be incorporated in the certificate of registration.
\n8.7 Sections 52(5) and 52(6) of the New Act, have been now re-enacted as
\nSections 52(4) and 52(5) of the Amended Act respectively.  The Amended Act,
\nhowever, contains an important explanation, which was absent in the Old Act or
\nthe New Act.  The explanation is to the effect that, for the purpose of Section
\n52, ” alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in
\na change in its basic feature.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. Section 52(1) of the Amended Act obviously is not very happily
\nworded.  By altering the vehicle the particulars contained in the certificate of
\nregistration cannot be variance with those specified by the manufacturers.  The
\ncertificate of registration contains some of the vital particulars of the
\nvehicles. The real meaning is that the particulars of alteration to be
\nincorporated in the Certificate of Registration as contemplated in Section 52(3)
\nof the Amended Act are at variance with those originally specified by the
\nmanufacturer.  When the provision is read in the light of the explanation, it is
\nobvious that changes or modification which do not result in change in basic
\nfeature need not be considered as alteration within the meaning of Section 52 of
\nthe Amended Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.1  A careful reading of Section 52 of the Amended Act indicate as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) “Alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which
\nresults in a change in its basic feature (This is apparent from the
\nExplanation).\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) Owner of a vehicle shall not alter the vehicle in such a manner that
\nparticulars of the altered vehicle would be at variance with the particulars
\nspecified by the manufacturer.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) However, engine or any part thereof can be modified for facilitating
\nits operation by different type of fuel or source of energy by fitment of a
\nconversion kit.  This, however, is subject to the conditions as may be
\nprescribed by the rules.  The Central Government may prescribe specifications,
\nconditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such
\nconversion kits.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) The Central Government may grant exemption for the alteration of the
\nvehicle in a manner other than specified above for any specific purpose.
\n\t(5) The State Government is empowered to issue notification permitting any
\nperson owning not less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle so as to
\nreplace the engine with engine of the same make and type without the approval of
\nthe registering authority.\n<\/p>\n
\t(6) If any alteration is made in the vehicle without the approval of the
\nregistering authority, the owner shall report such alteration to the registering
\nauthority within 14 days together with the prescribed fee in order that
\nparticulars of alteration made be entered in the certificate of registration.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. The provisions contained in Section 52, as they stand now, do
\nnot contemplate any specific prior permission for making any alteration, save
\nand except what is contemplated in the present Section 52(2).  Moreover, Section
\n52(1) as it stands now contemplates that the owner of a motor vehicle should not
\nalter the vehicle in such a manner that the particulars of the alteration would
\nbe at variance with the particulars originally specified by the Manufacturer.
\nWhere the change in the structure of the vehicle does not have the effect of
\nchanging the basic features of the vehicle, it does not come within the
\nprohibition contemplated in Section 52(1).  The above becomes clear if reference
\nis made to the Explanation, which lays down that for the purpose of Section 52
\n“alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a
\nchange in its basic feature.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. The RTO in his letter has referred to the provisions contained
\nin Section 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b).  A careful perusal of the provisions contained
\nin the Amended Act clearly indicate that the RTO has considered the matter in
\nthe light of the unamended provisions.  The provisions contained in Section 52
\nof the New Act, as already noticed, have undergone extensive amendment as per
\nAct 27 of 2000.  The RTO has based his reply on the provisions contained in the
\nNew Act before such amendment was effected by Act 27 of 2000.  After such
\namendment, there is no provision as 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b).  It is apparent that
\nSection 52(1)(a), as it stood before amendment, now corresponds to Section 52(1)
\nof the Amended Act and 52(1)(b) is no longer there in the statute book.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.1 A comparison of the relevant provisions contained in the Old Act and
\nthe New Act with the provisions of the Amendment Act clearly indicates that the
\nLegislature has dispensed with the requirement of obtaining permission relating
\nto every change or modification effected in a motor vehicle.  In fact the 1988
\nAct itself has been amended in such a manner as to make it unnecessary for
\nseeking permission to make such minor change or modification.  Moreover, every
\nminor change or modification is not necessarily considered as an alteration
\nwithin the meaning of Section 52 of the Amended Act.\tIn the present case, the
\nRTO has practically applied the provisions, which were available before the
\namendment was effected in 2000, without taking note of such amendment.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. Section 110(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to
\nmake rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor
\nvehicles with respect to all or any of the matters indicated.
\n\t12.1 Section 111(1) empowers the State Government to make rules regulating
\nthe construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with
\nrespect to all matters other than the matters specified in Section 110(1).\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 contains the
\nprovisions relating to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor
\nvehicles.  It is thus obvious that such Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles
\nRules is co-relatable to the matters enumerated under Section 110(1) of the Act.
\n13.1 Rule 126 is to the following effect :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“126. Prototype of every motor vehicle to be subject to test.- On and from
\nthe date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 1993,
\nevery manufacturer of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers shall
\nsubmit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the
\nVehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the
\nGovernment of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or the
\nCentral Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian
\nInstitute of Petroleum, Dehradun, and such other agencies as may be specified by
\nthe Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the
\ncompliance of the provisions of the Act and these Rules.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.2  Reference has been made to Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles
\nRules.  Rule 126 has already been extracted.  This Rule refers to the obligation
\nof the manufacturer of motor vehicles to submit prototype of the vehicle to be
\nmanufactured for the test to certain specified agencies such as the Vehicle
\nResearch and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the
\nGovernment of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or the
\nCentral Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian
\nInstitute of Petroleum, Dehradun.  The purpose of submitting such prototype is
\nto obtain a certificate by the concerned agency as to the compliance of the
\nprovisions of the Act and these Rules.  As per Section 2(21-A) “manufacturer”
\nmeans a person who is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles.  It is thus
\nobvious that Rule 126 is applicable to the manufacturer who intends to
\nmanufacture the vehicles.  The provisions contained in such Rule obviously
\ncannot be made applicable to an individual owner of a vehicle, who gets the
\nvehicle modified after purchasing from the dealer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. Reference has also been made to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles
\nRules, 1989, which is framed in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38,
\n65, 95, 107, 111 and 138 read with section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
\n\tRule 101, 104 and 105 are extracted hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“101. Alteration – notice form.- The Notice to the Registering Authority
\nunder clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 52 shall be in Form NAMV and it
\nshall be sent in duplicate by registered post.  The registering Authority shall
\nreturn a copy of the notice signifying its approval or disapproval in Part II
\nthereof.\n<\/p>\n
\t104. Change of classification.- No alteration involving or likely to
\ninvolve a change in the type or classification of vehicle shall be regarded as
\nan alteration for the purpose of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 52
\nand prior approval of the Registering Authority shall be obtained for any such
\nalteration.\n<\/p>\n
\t105. Vehicle to be produced.- The Registering Authority may, before
\nentering in the Registering Certificate particulars of any alteration or change
\nmade in the vehicle, require the owner to produce the vehicle before itself or
\nany other person authorized by it for the purpose of inspection of the
\nalteration or the change made.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. In the counter filed by the respondents there is reference to
\nthe Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, more particularly Rule 105.  Rule 105
\nmerely contemplates that before entering the alteration or change in the
\nregistering certificate, the vehicle is required to be produced for the purpose
\nof inspection of the alteration or the change made.  In the present case, it is
\nnot in dispute that in fact the vehicles of the petitioner have been inspected
\nby the Motor Vehicles Inspector on behalf of the registering authority.
\n15.1 The question is what is the purpose insisting on production of the vehicle
\nbefore the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
15.2   Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the registering
\nauthority to refuse to register any motor vehicle, if such authority has reason
\nto believe that the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with
\nthe requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.
\n\t15.3  Section 53(1)(a) empowers the competent authority to suspend the
\nregistration of a vehicle, if such competent authority has reason to believe
\nthat if any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction is in such a condition that
\nits use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or fails to
\ncomply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.
\nSuspension of registration contemplated under Section 53(1)(a) is to remain in
\nvogue until the defects are rectified to the satisfaction of such authority.
\n15.4 Section 54 empowers such authority to cancel the registration when such
\nsuspension of registration has continued without interruption for a period of
\nnot less than six months.  Under Section 55(3), the competent authority has
\npower to order examination of a motor vehicle and if satisfied that the vehicle
\nis in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public
\nplace would constitute a danger to the public and such vehicle is beyond
\nreasonable repair, to cancel registration after giving opportunity to the owner
\nto make representation.\n<\/p>\n
15.5 The provisions, which are contained in Chapter IV relating to registration
\nof motor vehicles, have to be read along with Section 52.  Section 52(3)
\ncontemplates that whenever any alteration is made, the owner of the vehicle is
\nrequired to report such alteration to the competent authority.  Rule 105
\nenvisages that the vehicle is required to be produced before the competent
\nauthority.  Thus, if the competent authority comes to the conclusion that a
\nmotor vehicle, which is altered before the registration, complies with the
\nrequirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, such vehicle may be
\nregistered.  On the other hand, such competent authority may refuse to register
\nany motor vehicle, if the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply
\nwith the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder.  Similarly,
\nsince registration of a vehicle can be suspended under Section 53 or cancelled
\nunder Sections 54 and 55, if any alteration is made in respect of a vehicle
\nalready registered, at the time of noting such alteration as contemplated under
\nSection 52(3), the competent authority can apply the very same standard and
\nrefuse to note the particulars.  In other words, if the competent authority
\ncomes to the conclusion that the altered vehicle is mechanically defective or
\nfails to comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules or its use in a
\npublic place would constitute a danger to the public and there is no possibility
\nof rectifying the defects, such competent authority can refuse to note the
\nalterations in the certificate of registration.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. The next question is, whether the vehicles can be treated as
\n“invalid carriages” and driving licence can be issued accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. Chapter II refers to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles.
\nSection 3 lays down the necessity for driving licence.  Section 8 relates to
\ngrant of learner’s licence.  As per Section 8(4), a licensing authority has the
\nauthority to refuse a learner’s licence if it appears that the applicant is
\nsuffering from any disability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be
\na source of danger for the public or to the passengers.  The proviso however
\nspecifically contemplates that a learner’s licence limited to driving an invalid
\ncarriage may be issued if the applicant is fit to drive such a carriage.
\n\tSection 10(2)(c) contemplates that a learner’s licence or a driving
\nlicence can be issued entitling the holder to drive an “invalid carriage”.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. Chapter IV relates to Registration of Motor Vehicles.  Section
\n41(3) provides that the registering authority shall issue a certificate of
\nregistration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in
\nsuch form as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
\n18.1 As per Section 41(4), in addition to the other particulars required to be
\nincluded in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of
\nthe motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government specify by
\nnotification in the Official Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
18.2 In accordance with Section 41(4), the Central Government had issued a
\nnotification dated 19.6.1992 specifying the types of motor vehicles.  The table
\ncontains the types of motor vehicles relatable to transport vehicles and non-
\ntransport vehicles.  Under the heading Non-Transport Vehicles, entry (iv) is
\n“invalid carriage”.\n<\/p>\n
18.3 As per Section 2(18) the expression “invalid carriage” means a motor
\nvehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for the use
\nof a person suffering some physical defect or disability, and used solely by or
\nfor such person.  The expression “adapted” has not been defined in the statute.
\nAs per Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition, the word “adapt” is a verb, which
\nmeans “make suitable for a new use or purpose”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.4 The expression “adapted” has been used in various definition clauses
\nsuch as in Sections 2(14), 2(18), 2(22), 2(25), 2(26), 2(28), 2(29), 2(33),
\n2(35), 2(40) and 2(43).  Meaning has to be ascribed to such expression keeping
\nin view the context in which it has been used.  Though ordinarily the word
\n“adapted” can be considered as past tense of the verb “adapt”, at times such
\nexpression “adapted” can be considered as adjectival.  Understood in such a
\nsense, the expression can mean “suitable”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.5  In the context in which it has been used in Section 2(18) the word
\n“adapted” means suitable.  It becomes more clear when the preceding expression
\nrefers to “a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely
\nadapted”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.6 In several decisions, such expression “adapted” has been understood
\nto mean “suitable” or “suited”.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.7 In AIR 1975 SC 17 (BOLANI ORES LTD. v. STATE OF ORISSA),<\/a> it was
\nobserved :-\n<\/p>\n
\t“19. While dealing with the English cases it must not be forgotten that
\nthe definition of “motor vehicle” in the Road Traffic Act imports the element of
\nintention into the definition for ascertaining whether a vehicle is a motor
\nvehicle. In Maddox v. Storer Lord Parker, C.J. was construing the word “adapted”
\nwhen used disjunctively with “constructed.” He observed:
\n\t“One can get illustration after illustration, on looking at the Act
\nitself, where ‘adapted’, when used disjunctively with ‘constructed’ must mean a
\nphysical alteration, and, as it seems to me, other cases where the word
\n‘adapted’ alone is used and where it must be given the adjectival meaning of
\nbeing fit and apt for the purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
But where the word “adapted” alone has been used such as in sub-paragraph (2) of
\nparagraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, he was of the
\nview that it was wholly inapt to mean “altered so as to make fit”. He asked “How
\ndo you alter a motor-car so as to make it fit to carry not more than seven
\npassengers”? It is clearly there standing on its own, susceptible only of
\nmeaning “fit and apt for the purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
\t…\n<\/p>\n
\t22. As usual references have been made to the Dictionaries but quite often
\nit is not possible to hold a dictionary in one hand and the statute to be
\ninterpreted in the other for ascertaining the import and intent of the word or
\nexpression used by Legislature. The shade of meaning of a word, its different
\nconnotations and collocations which one finds in a dictionary does not relieve
\nus of the responsibility of having to make the ultimate choice of selecting the
\nright meaning. We choose that meaning which is most apt in the context, colour
\nand diction in which the word is used. The use of a dictionary ad lib without an
\nanalysis of the entire Act, its purpose and its intent, for ascertaining the
\nmeaning in which the Legislature could have used the word or expression may not
\nlead us to the right conclusion. With this caution before us for avoiding any of
\nthe aforesaid methods which might lead to a possible incongruity, we will
\nexamine the different facets to which our attention has been drawn.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. The meaning of the word “adapted” in Section 2(18) of the Act is
\nitself indicated in Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
\nConstitution, which confers a power on the State to tax vehicles whether
\npropelled mechanically or not and uses the word “suitable” in relation to its
\nuse on the roads. The words “adapted for use” must therefore be construed as
\n“suitable for use”. At any rate, words “adapted for use” cannot be larger in
\ntheir import by including vehicles which are not “suitable for use” on roads. In
\nthis sense, the words “is adapted” for use have the same connotation as “is
\nsuitable” or “is fit” for use on the roads.” (emphasis added)<\/p>\n
\t18.8 Similar meaning was attributed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC
\n1371 (M\/s. CENTRAL COAL FIELDS LTD., v. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS).<\/a>
\n18.9 In (2004) 6 SCC 210 (GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND ANOTHER v. ROAD ROLLERS OWNERS
\nWELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS), the Supreme Court,<\/a> while considering the
\nquestion as to whether a road roller is a motor vehicle within the meaning of
\nSection 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“5. … Undoubtedly, a roadroller is meant for repairing roads.  This
\nitself shows that it is adapted for use on roads.  A roadroller is not capable
\nof being used off the road.  Merely because its purpose is to repair roads does
\nnot mean that it is not suitable or not adapted for use on roads. …  So long
\nas it is a vehicle, which is mechanically propelled, and is adapted for use on
\nroads, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act,
\n1988.”\n<\/p>\n
\t18.10 From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that the expression
\n“adapted” has been used in different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which
\ncarries the meaning of “suitable” or “capable of being used” on the road.  It is
\nused as an “adjectival” expression rather than a verb.\n<\/p>\n
 \t\t19. In the present case, the vehicles in question, even though
\noriginally designed and constructed in a particular manner, subsequently have
\nbeen designed and constructed specially for the use of a person suffering from
\ndisability.  It may be true that originally the vehicles had been designed,
\nconstructed and manufactured in a normal manner.  But, subsequently, those have
\nbeen specially designed and constructed for the use of a person suffering from
\ndisability.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. A reading of the counter of Respondents 1 to 3 gives the
\nimpression that according to the respondents an “invalid carriage” is a motor
\nvehicle which is specially designed and constructed by a manufacturer and may
\nnot include a normal vehicle which has been subsequently specially designed and
\nconstructed by a mechanic in a workshop.  There is nothing in Section 2(18)
\nwhich excludes the possibility of a vehicle being re-designed and re-constructed
\nby a mechanic for the use of a person suffering from disability.  While
\nconsidering the question as to whether a vehicle can be registered as an invalid
\ncarriage, the authority concerned may have to keep in mind the safety factor or
\nother relevant factors such as emission level.  However, there is no warrant for
\nthe conclusion that a vehicle originally manufactured cannot be specially re-
\ndesigned and reconstructed specially for the persons suffering from disability.
\nA manufacturer of a particular type of vehicle may not think of manufacturing
\ninvalid carriage on account of economic factor such as lack of demand.  In the
\npresent case, it has been asserted by the petitioner that manufacture of invalid
\ncarriage by Maruti has been stopped.  It is not necessary to go into this
\naspect.  Even assuming that invalid carriages are still being manufactured,\tI
\ndo not find there is any restriction that a normal vehicle cannot be redesigned
\nand reconstructed specially for the use of a person suffering from disability so
\nthat such altered vehicle can be registered as “invalid carriage”.  Similarly
\nthere is no prohibition for re-registering a vehicle as “invalid carriage”
\nthough it was registered otherwise initially.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. The petitioner has also emphasised on the fact that the
\nmanufacturers have stopped manufacturing vehicles specially designed for the
\ndisabled persons obviously because of the economic considerations.   Therefore,
\na disabled person, who is desirous of driving a vehicle himself, would be unable
\nto do so unless necessary changes or modifications in the vehicle are permitted
\nto be done through private agencies.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for
\nRespondents 1 to 3 that prayer in the writ petition is for issuing a direction
\nto the respondents to issue a driving licence and the letter communicated by the
\nRTO indicating return of the application to the petitioner has not been
\nspecifically challenged by filing a writ petition for issuing Certiorarified
\nMandamus.\n<\/p>\n
\t22.1 The aforesaid submission, in my opinion, does not deserve any serious
\nconsideration in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.  Even though
\nthere is no specific prayer for quashing such letter, all the relevant facts and
\ncircumstances are available on record.  In fact, there is no factual aspect
\nrequired to be decided.  Since all the necessary facts are on record, there is
\nno embargo on this Court to mould the relief.  A court of law, more particularly
\na court while dealing with the equitable jurisdiction envisaged under Article
\n226 of the Constitution of India, need not be considered as a chess board or an
\nobstacle course.  The technical objections, which merely serve to defeat the
\nobjective of rendering substantial justice, should be discouraged.  If the
\ntechnical objection raised by the Government Advocate is to be accepted, the
\npetitioner would be forced to either amend the writ petition or file a fresh
\nwrit petition which in the long run will not serve any useful purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with
\nthe following directions :-\n<\/p>\n
\t(1) The Regional Transport Officer shall consider afresh the application
\nmade by the petitioner for noting the modifications or changes made in the
\nvehicles in the Registration Certificate in the light of the observations
\nrelating to the present position of law as discussed in the present judgment.
\n\t(2) The question of treating the vehicles as “invalid carriage” shall be
\nreconsidered in the light of the observations made.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) The Regional Transport Officer shall consider the question of issuance
\nof Learner’s licence and subsequently a driving licence in the light of the
\nobservations made.\n<\/p>\n
\t(4) An appropriate decision in respect of the above directions shall be
\ntaken by the Regional Transport Officer as expeditiously as possible, preferably
\nwithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
dpk<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Transport Commissioner, Chennai 5.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
\n    Bye-pass road, Madurai (South), Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
4. Secretary to Government,Union of India,  Ministry of Road Transport
\n    and Shipping,    New Delhi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 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. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-05T07:00:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-05T07:00:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":7116,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\",\"name\":\"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-05T07:00:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-05T07:00:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"36 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-05T07:00:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008"},"wordCount":7116,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008","name":"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-05T07:00:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-ramasamy-vs-the-secretary-on-16-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Ramasamy vs The Secretary on 16 May, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}