# REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC v. K. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC

- **Citation:** [2019] 1 S.C.R. 179
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-01-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 219-222 of 2019
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/regional-transport-officer-ors-etc-v-k-jayachandra-anr-etc-33760
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 52 (as amended by Act 27/2000) - Alteration in motor
vehicle - Permissible limit - Held: The very object of amendment
of s. 52(1) is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle - Explanation to s.
52 says that "alteration" means a change in the structure of a
vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature - Thus, the
alterations which do not change the basic features are outside the
purview of alteration - Though the vehicle has to comply with the
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the Rules have to be read as
subservient to the provisions of the Act - The High Court has failed
to give effect to the provisions contained in s. 52(1) and has
emphasized only on the Rules - Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
- r. 126 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - rr. 96, 103 and 261.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The very object of the amendment of section
52(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act 27/2000 is to prohibit
alteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyres
of higher capacity. The amended section 52(1) has specified the
extent to which vehicle cannot be altered. A reading of the
provisions makes it clear that no vehicle can be altered in a manner
where particulars in the certificate of registration are at variance
with those "originally specified by the manufacturer". The proviso
to sub-section (1) permits 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 etc., such
modification is permissible to be carried out subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed. The second proviso to section
52(1) empowers the Central Government to prescribe
specifications, conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 179
179
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
related matters for such conversion kits. The Central
Government has power to grant an exemption for alteration of
vehicles for any specific purpose. Section 52(2) authorizes a State
Government to issue a notification and permit any person owning
not less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by
him so as to replace the 'engine' with an engine of the same
make and type, without the approval of the Registering Authority.
Section 52(3) provides that where the alteration has been made
without the approval of the Registering Authority, obviously the
one which is permissible in the motor vehicle, the owner of the
vehicle has to report the same within 14 days to make an entry in
the particulars of the registration. The provisions of section 52(2),
(3), (4) and (5) have to be read harmoniously. The Explanation to
section 52 says that "alteration" means a change in the structure
of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. The
alterations which do not change the basic features are outside
the purview of alteration. [Para 27][199-B-G]
2. The vehicle has to comply with the provisions of the Rules
contained in Chapter V of the Central Rules as provided in Rule
92(1). Rule 92(1) has to be read as subservient to the provisions
contained in section 52 of the 1988 Act and what is prohibited
therein to allow the same is not the intendment of the rules
contained in the Chapter. Various provisions in Chapter V are
additional safeguards to what is prohibited in section 52(1) that
is to say, what has been specified originally by the manufacturers
and once that has been entered in the particulars in the certificate
of registration, cannot be varied. No vehicle can be altered so as
to change original specification made by manufacturer. [Para
32][206-F-H]
3. It is provided in Rule 126 of the Central Rules, prototype
of every type of vehicle is subject to test. The provisions of Rule
126 intend for fitness of vehicle to be plied on the road by the
agencies which are specified therein. Approval and certification
of motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be in
ac

## Text

_Characters 0–39,799 of 53,651. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39799 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC.
v.
K. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 219-222 of 2019)
JANUARY 09, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
s. 52 (as amended by Act 27/2000) - Alteration in motor
vehicle - Permissible limit - Held: The very object of amendment
of s. 52(1) is to prohibit alteration of a vehicle - Explanation to s.
52 says that "alteration" means a change in the structure of a
vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature - Thus, the
alterations which do not change the basic features are outside the
purview of alteration - Though the vehicle has to comply with the
provisions of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the Rules have to be read as
subservient to the provisions of the Act - The High Court has failed
to give effect to the provisions contained in s. 52(1) and has
emphasized only on the Rules - Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989
- r. 126 - Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - rr. 96, 103 and 261.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The very object of the amendment of section
52(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by Act 27/2000 is to prohibit
alteration of a vehicle as provided including the change of tyres
of higher capacity. The amended section 52(1) has specified the
extent to which vehicle cannot be altered. A reading of the
provisions makes it clear that no vehicle can be altered in a manner
where particulars in the certificate of registration are at variance
with those "originally specified by the manufacturer". The proviso
to sub-section (1) permits 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 etc., such
modification is permissible to be carried out subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed. The second proviso to section
52(1) empowers the Central Government to prescribe
specifications, conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 179
179
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
related matters for such conversion kits. The Central
Government has power to grant an exemption for alteration of
vehicles for any specific purpose. Section 52(2) authorizes a State
Government to issue a notification and permit any person owning
not less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by
him so as to replace the 'engine' with an engine of the same
make and type, without the approval of the Registering Authority.
Section 52(3) provides that where the alteration has been made
without the approval of the Registering Authority, obviously the
one which is permissible in the motor vehicle, the owner of the
vehicle has to report the same within 14 days to make an entry in
the particulars of the registration. The provisions of section 52(2),
(3), (4) and (5) have to be read harmoniously. The Explanation to
section 52 says that "alteration" means a change in the structure
of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. The
alterations which do not change the basic features are outside
the purview of alteration. [Para 27][199-B-G]
2. The vehicle has to comply with the provisions of the Rules
contained in Chapter V of the Central Rules as provided in Rule
92(1). Rule 92(1) has to be read as subservient to the provisions
contained in section 52 of the 1988 Act and what is prohibited
therein to allow the same is not the intendment of the rules
contained in the Chapter. Various provisions in Chapter V are
additional safeguards to what is prohibited in section 52(1) that
is to say, what has been specified originally by the manufacturers
and once that has been entered in the particulars in the certificate
of registration, cannot be varied. No vehicle can be altered so as
to change original specification made by manufacturer. [Para
32][206-F-H]
3. It is provided in Rule 126 of the Central Rules, prototype
of every type of vehicle is subject to test. The provisions of Rule
126 intend for fitness of vehicle to be plied on the road by the
agencies which are specified therein. Approval and certification
of motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be in
accordance with the AIS: 017-2000. Rule 93 deals with overall
dimensions of the motor vehicles such as width, length, height,
overhang etc. No doubt about it that the vehicle has to be in
conformity with the rules also but Rules cannot be so interpreted
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
so as to permit the alteration as prohibited under section 52(1)
of the Act. The alteration under the Rules is permissible except
as prohibited by section 52. The specification of the rules would
hold good with respect to the matters as not specifically covered
under section 52(1) and not specified therein by manufacturer.
The emphasis of section 52(1) is not to vary the "original
specifications by the manufacturer". Remaining particulars in a
certificate of registration can be modified and changed and can
be noted in the certificate of registration as provided in section
52(2), (3) and (5) and the Rules. Under section 52(5), in case a
person is holding a vehicle on a hire purchase agreement, he
shall not make any alteration except with the written consent of
the original owner. [Para 32][207-A-D]
4. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has failed to
give effect to the provisions contained in section 52(1) and has
emphasized only on the Rules. As such, the decision rendered
by the Division Bench cannot be said to be laying down the law
correctly. The Rules are subservient to the provisions of the Act
and particulars in certificate of registration can also be changed
except to the extent of the entries made in the same as per the
specifications originally made by the manufacturer. Circular No.7/
2006 is also to be read in that spirit. [Para 33][207-E-F]
Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 5
SCC 321 : [2012] 4 SCR 35 - relied on.
R. Ramasamy v. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport,
Chennai & Ors. (2009) 1 Mad.LJ 1027; Mohd. Javeed
v. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 9 ALD 88 = 2009 1
ALT
507;
V.N. Dharmakrishnan v.
Deputy
Commissioner of Transport AIR 2006
Mad. 340 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2012] 4 SCR 35
relied on
Para 20
(2009) 1 Mad.LJ 1027
referred to
Para 22
2009 1 ALT 507
referred to
Para 25
AIR 2006 Mad. 340
referred to
Para 26
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 219 -
222 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.2012 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. Nos. 28702 of 2007-P, 1323 of 2010-M,
1468 of 2010-G and 274 of 2012-H.
WITH
Civil Appeal No. 223 of 2019.
 Aman Lekhi, ASG, K. V. Viswanathan, Sr. Adv., Ravi Raghunath,
Dhananjay B. Ray, Mukunda Rao, Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Venkatraman
V. R., Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, A. Anvar, Reegan S. Bel,
Jogy Scaria, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Bharat Singh,
Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. The question involved is as to the permissible alteration in a
Motor Vehicle in view of the provisions contained in section 52 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Rule
126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the effect of Rules
96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The Central
Government has framed the rules called Central Motor Vehicle Rules,
1989 (for short "the Central Rules") in exercise of the power conferred
under section 27 of the Act, and in exercise of powers conferred under
Section 28 of the Act, the Kerala Government has framed the Kerala
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Kerala Rules").
The validity of Circular No.7/2006 issued by the Transport Commissioner,
Kerala to all the Registering Authorities stating that the body of the
vehicle constructed in violation of the prototype test certificate and which
was not built in strict compliance of the specifications given by the
manufacturer are to be denied the registration. Pursuant thereto the
Regional Transport Authorities did not grant permission to certain motor
vehicles in view of the provisions contained in section 52 and the Circular.
As such several writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of
Kerala at Ernakulam.
3. In Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 decided on 16.1.2007 by
the learned Single Judge it was held that Rule 126 of the Central Rules
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
183
does not fetter the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities to
intelligently exercise their discretion in terms of the Kerala Rules, in
particular Rules 96, 103 and 261; whereas a contrary view was taken by
another Single Judge vide order dated 23.5.2007 in Writ Petition (C)
No.8836 of 2007 and it was observed that the alteration in derogation of
prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central Rules cannot be
approved.
4. Writ Petition (C) No.28702 of 2007 for quashing Circular No.7/
2006 and the order passed on 3.7.2007 declining registration was filed.
5. Writ Petition (C) Nos.1323 of 2010 and 1468/2010 were filed
with respect to the denial of registration by the Registering Authorities
as the body built over the chassis extended by a length of 15 cms. beyond
the chassis which was not adhering to the specifications given by the
manufacturer of the vehicle.
6. Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 was filed by the owner of the
vehicle to question denial of registration in view of the aforesaid rule and
the Circular. Yet another Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 was filed
against the refusal to grant registration of a vehicle which was re-modelled
as a 'recovery vehicle' altered in an unauthorised manner by cutting the
chassis of the vehicle by one feet at the rear end which was not in
conformity with the prototype test in terms of Rule 126 of the Central
Rules.
7. In view of the conflict in judgments in Writ Petition (C) No.29946
of 2006 and Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of 2007 regarding the issue of
alteration whether alteration is permissible at variance with the
manufacturer's specification contained in the prototype test certification,
the matter was referred to a Division Bench of the High Court. The
High Court by the common judgment passed in the writ petitions came
to the conclusion that structural alteration is permissible as per the
provisions of the Kerala Rules. The view taken by the learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of 2006 has been upheld hence the
appeals have been preferred in this Court. This Court has stayed the
operation of the impugned judgment and order on 16.4.2013. Considering
the importance of the matter notice was issued to the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways through its Secretary, and Mr. K.V. Viswanathan,
learned senior counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the
Court.
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
8. It is apparent from the factual matrix of Writ Petition (C)
No.28702 of 2007 that it was a case of medium commercial bus chassis.
The registration was declined on the ground that the platform of the bus
was extended to a distance of 37 cms. and the body was having an
extension of 39 cms. from the extreme rear end of the chassis. The
vehicle had an extended length of 39 cms. The technical specifications
of model TATA bus chassis have specified length of 757.5 cm. After the
body was built, it had a total length of 796.5 cm.
9. Similarly, in Writ Petition (C) No.1323 of 2010 and Writ Petition
(C) No.1468 of 2010, the body was built over the chassis extended by
15 cm. beyond the chassis. In Writ Petition (C) No.274 of 2012 the
vehicle was re-modeled as a recovery vehicle by cutting the chassis of
the vehicle by one foot at the rear end. In Writ Petition (C) No.29946 of
2006, the unladen weight of the vehicle before alteration was 2315 kg.
and the same had been increased on alteration to 2715 kgs. Besides,
there were changes in the measurement of the body which resulted in
declining the permission for registration. In Writ Petition (C) No.8836 of
2007, the length of the chassis of the vehicle as per prototype was 832.5
cm. but after building the body it was found to have been extended to
885 cm.
10. Section 52 of the Act deals with alteration in the motor vehicle.
Prior to that, provision with respect to alteration in motor vehicles was
contained in section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Section 32 of
the Act of 1939 is extracted hereunder:
"SECTION 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 percent. of the weight entered
in the certificate of registration.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
185
(2) Where a registering authority has received notice under subsection (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, authorise,
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."
 (emphasis supplied)
11. The alteration in a motor vehicle under the parent Act is dealt
with in section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 52 as originally
enacted is extracted hereunder:
"52. Alternation in a 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.-
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
(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 percent 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 has received notice under subsection (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, authorise,
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),
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
187
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."
 (emphasis supplied)
12. Section 52 has undergone change by way of Amendment Act
27/2000. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of Amendment Act 27/
2000 is extracted hereunder:
"Amendment Act 27 of 2000 - Statement of Objects and
Reasons. - The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 consolidated and
rationalized various laws regulating road transport. The said Act
was amended in 1994.
2. Further amendments in the aforesaid Act have become
necessary so as to reduce the vehicular pollution and to ensure
the safety of the road users. It is, therefore, proposed to prohibit
alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres of
higher capacity. However, the alteration of vehicles with a view
to facilitating the use of eco-friendly fuel including Liquefied
Petroleum Gas (LPG) is being permitted. Further, it is proposed
to confer powers on the Central Government to allow the alteration
of vehicles for certain specified purposes.
3. At present, the educational institutions are not required to obtain
permits for the operation of buses owned by them. It is proposed
to bring the buses run by these institutions within the purview of
the aforesaid Act by requiring them to obtain permits.
4. It is also proposed to allow renewal of permits, driving licences
and registration certificates granted under the Motor Vehicles Act,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
1939 to be renewed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by
inserting new section 217 - A.
5. The proposed amendments are essential in the overall interest
of securing road safety and maintaining a clean environment."
 (emphasis supplied)
13. It is apparent that section 52 has been amended with the purpose
to prohibit alteration of vehicles in any manner including change of tyres
of higher capacity, keeping in view road safety and protection of
environment. Section 52 has been amended by virtue of Amendment
Act 27/2000 in the following manner:
"52. Alteration in a 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 an 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, authorise,
subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notifications,
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
189
(3) Where any alteration has been made in a 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-section (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 change in
its basic feature."
 (emphasis supplied)
14. Rule 126 of the Central Rules deals with the prototype of
every motor vehicle to be subject to test. Rule 126 is extracted hereunder:
"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 or
importer] of motor vehicles [including trailers, semi trailers and
modular hydraulic trailer] [including registered association
(identified by the concerned State Transport Department) for Erickshaw wherever applicable] shall submit the prototype of the
vehicle [to be manufactured or imported 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 Farm Machinery Testing
and Training Institute, Budni (MP)], or the Indian Institute of
Petroleum, Dehradun, [or the Central Institute of Road Transport",
Pune, or the International Centre for Automotive Technology,
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
Manesar,] [or the Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and
Testing Institute, Hissar (for testing of combine harvester) and
such other agencies as may be specified by the Central
Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the
compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules:]
[Provided that the procedure for type approval and certification
of motor vehicles for compliance to these rules shall be in
accordance with the AIS:017-2000, as amended from time to time:]
[Provided further that in respect to the vehicles imported into India
as completely built units (CBU), the importer shall submit a vehicle
of that particular model and type to the testing agencies for granting
a certificate by that agency as to the compliance to the provision
of the Act and these rules.]
[126A. The testing agencies referred to in rule 126 shall in
accordance with the procedures laid down by the Central
Government also conduct tests on vehicles drawn from the
production line of the manufacturer to verify whether these vehicles
conform to the provisions of [rules made under section 110 of the
Act]:]
[Provided that in case the number of vehicles sold in India for a
given base model and its variants (manufactured in India or
imported to India) are less than 250 in any consecutive period of
six months in a year, then such base model and its variants need
not be subjected to the above test, if at least one model or its
variants manufactured or imported by that manufacturer or
importer, as the case may be, is subjected to such tests at least
once in a year:
Provided further that, in case the number of base models and its
variants manufactured/imported is more than one and if the
individual base model and its variants are less than 250 in any
consecutive period of six months in a year, then the testing agencies
can pick up one of the vehicles out of such models and their variants
once in a year for carrying out such test.] "
15. Rule 93 deals with the overall dimension of motor vehicles.
The Rule prescribes the overall width, overall length, and overall height
etc. Rule 93(1) deals with overall width. Rule 93(2) with overall length.
Rule 93(4) with overall height. Rule 93(6) with overhang etc.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
191
16. The relevant Rules 96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, providing for inspection of vehicles, recording
alteration and body construction are extracted hereunder:
"96. Inspection of vehicle prior to Registration:- (1) Inspecting
Officer.- The Registering Authority or such authority as the
Government may by order appoint shall inspect the vehicle as
required by section 44 of the Act.
(2) Production of vehicle for inspection:- The vehicle shall be
produced for inspection along with the required documents for
registration, before the inspecting officer, for comparative scrutiny
of the particulars contained in the application with the physical
features of the vehicles, and for ascertaining its fitness for use in
public place.
(3) Report of Inspecting Officer:- The Inspecting Officer after
making modifications deemed necessary in the particulars
contained in the application, shall certify therein regarding the
correctness of the entries and the fitness of the vehicle:
Provided that in the case of a transport vehicle, or for any other
vehicle of which the body is not factory-built or a stereotyped
pattern previously approved by the Registering Authority, he shall
prepare and issue a measurement certificate in Form "MC" and
a sketch showing therein the seating arrangements, dimensions
and other relevant particulars under Chapter VII of these rules.
The Inspecting Officer shall simultaneously forward a copy each
of the measurement certificate and sketch to the concerned
Registering Authority also.
103. Recording alteration to a motor vehicle:- (1) Ascertaining
suitability of alteration - The Registering Authority may require
inspection of the vehicle by himself or by any other Inspector of
motor vehicles to satisfy that any alteration made is suitable. The
owner of the vehicle shall, on demand, produce the vehicle for
inspection.
(2) The Inspecting Officer shall prepare and issue a fresh
measurement certificate in Form "MC" and a sketch showing
therein the seating arrangement, dimensions etc., as found on
inspection in the following circumstances:
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
(a) When consequent to any structural alteration made in a motor
vehicle the particulars of registration noted in one or more of items
1, 3, 11, 13 & 19 of the certificate of registration are no longer
accurate.
(b) When consequent to any re-arrangement of loading space or
seats, their position or dimensions are altered though such
arrangement does not affect the registration particulars referred
to in clause (a) above.
261. Body construction:- The body of every transport vehicle
shall be soundly constructed and securely fastened to the frame
of the vehicle and in accordance with the specifications, if any,
laid down by the State or Regional Transport Authority."
 (emphasis supplied)
17. The Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned
judgment has opined that alteration is not totally prohibited. More so, in
view of Rules 96 and 103 of the Kerala Rules, the Registering Authority
is competent to consider roadworthiness and safety of the vehicle and it
cannot be rendered a mechanical exercise. It is not only to verify as to
whether the measurement conforms to the prototype test etc. The Rules
provide for the dimensions of the vehicle. Rule 93 is not an enabling
provision to make prototype certification. Rule 47(1)(g) of the Central
Rules contemplates on road-worthiness certificate in Form 22 from the
manufacturers and in Form 22A from the bodybuilders for applying for
registration of the motor vehicles. The body can be built on a chassis in
compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. The manufacturer or the authorities specified under
Rule 126 do not provide for any prescription as to the dimensions or
nature of the body that is to be built on the chassis. The writ petitions
have been allowed and orders passed by the Registering Authorities
have been quashed.
18. It was urged by Mr. K.V. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel
appearing as amicus curiae that the provisions contained in section 52 of
the Act and Rule 126, as well as the Kerala Rules, have not been correctly
interpreted by the High Court. It is not permissible to make alteration
under the Rules in contravention of the provisions contained in section
52 of the Act. The provisions of the Act and the Rules have been enacted
for the purpose of safety on the roads and environment and it is not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
193
permissible to alter the vehicle in derogation to the provisions of the Act.
He has referred to a plethora of decisions and has also attracted the
attention of this Court towards the pending Motor Vehicles Amendment)
Bill, 2017 and the extracts of 243rd Report of the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Transport, Tourism and Culture on the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Bill, 2016.
19. Mr. Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
on behalf of the Ministry of Transport contended that the correct
interpretation of the amended provisions in section 52 has not been made
by the High Court. He has also attracted our attention to the Rules.
20. In Avishek Goenka (1) v. Union of India & Anr. (2012) 5
SCC 321, a question came up for consideration with respect to Rule 100
of the Central Rules prescribing a standard for safety. This Court held
the same to be a valid piece of legislation. The object of the Act also
came up for consideration and the Court observed that the legislative
intent attaching due significance to the "public safety" is evident from
the Objects and Reasons of the Act. The Court should give an
interpretation of the Rules which would serve the legislative intent and
the object of framing such Rules, in preference to the one which would
defeat the very purpose of enacting the Rules as well as undermining
the public safety and interest. This Court considered the provisions
contained in section 52, Rules 92 and 100 of the Central Rules and
observed thus:
"18. From the above provisions, it is clear that the Rules deal with
every minute detail of construction and maintenance of a vehicle.
In other words, the standards, sizes, and specifications which the
manufacturer of a vehicle is required to adhere to while
manufacturing the vehicle are exhaustively dealt with under the
Rules. What is permitted has been specifically provided for and
what has not been specifically stated would obviously be deemed
to have been excluded from these Rules. It would neither be
permissible nor possible for the Court to read into these statutory
provisions, what is not specifically provided for. These are the
specifications which are in consonance with the prescribed IS
No. 2553-Part 2 of 1992 and nothing is ambiguous or uncertain.
19. Let us take a few examples. Rule 104 requires that every
motor vehicle, other than three-wheelers and motorcycles shall
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
be fitted with two red reflectors, one each on both sides at their
rear. Every motorcycle shall be fitted with at least one red reflector
at the rear. Rule 104A provides that two white reflex in the front
of the vehicle on each side and visible to oncoming vehicles from
the front at night.
20. Rule 106 deals with deflections of lights and requires that no
lamp showing a light to the front shall be used on any motor vehicle
including construction equipment vehicle unless such lamp is so
constructed, fitted and maintained that the beam of light emitted
therefrom is permanently deflected downwards to such an extent
that it is not capable of dazzling any person whose eye position is
at a distance of 8 meters from the front of lamp etc. Rules 119
and 120 specify the kind, size, and manner in which the horn and
silencer are to be fixed in a vehicle.
21. These provisions demonstrate the extent of minuteness in the
Rules and the efforts of the framers to ensure, not only the
appropriate manner of construction and maintenance of the vehicle
but also the safety of other users of the road.
28. The legislative intent attaching due significance to the 'public
safety' is evident from the object and reasons of the Act, the
provisions of the Act and more particularly, the Rules framed
thereunder. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that
Rule 100 is capable of any interpretation, then this Court should
give it an interpretation which would serve the legislative intent
and the object of framing such rules, in preference to one which
would frustrate the very purpose of enacting the Rules as well as
undermining the public safety and interest.
32. In the present case as well, even if some individual interests
are likely to suffer, such individual or private interests must give in
to the larger public interest. It is the duty of all citizens to comply
with the law. The Rules are mandatory and nobody has the
authority in law to mould these rules for the purposes of
convenience or luxury and certainly not for crime."
21. It has been observed that the Rules deal in minute details with
the construction and maintenance of the vehicle. Rules also deal with
the safety of other users on the road. If some individual interest is likely
to suffer, such individual interest must give way to the larger public
interest.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
195
22. Before dilating further upon the issue we take note of the
decision in R. Ramasamy v. The Secretary, Ministry of Transport,
Chennai & Ors. (2009) 1 Mad.LJ 1027 wherein the Madras High Court
has considered the provisions of section 52(1)(a) as amended by Act 27/
2000 and has opined thus:
"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
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
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. The first proviso to Section 52(1) of the New Act has
also been deleted and the second proviso to Section 52(1) of the
New Act relating to the 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 the 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 renumbered as Section 52(2) of
the Amended Act. Section 52(4) of the New Act has been reenacted with certain changes as Section 52(3) of the Amended
Act requiring the owner to report regarding the alteration to the
registering authority.