Abdul Vahab v. Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Kollam; Joint Regional Transport Officer, Karunagappally; Transport Commissioner, Government of Kerala; State of Kerala; Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 4519 of 2011(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): - --------------- ABDUL VAHAB, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.YOONUS KUNJU, NEEROZHUKKIL THARAYAIL, PALLISSERICKAL P.O., SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJASREE (CHUTTIMATTATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM. 2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND SHIPPING, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA FOR R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2011, THE COURT ON 19/9/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO. 4519 of 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE OF THE VEHICLE. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE VEHICLE CARE CENTRE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.2011 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION. EXT.P4(a)TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 29.5.2009 WHICH IS BINDING ON THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. - EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER KOZHIKODE TO THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER - THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ## RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF OFFICE LETTER NO.C1/4107/TC/2010 DATED 26.4.2010. EXT.R3(b) 1 & R3(b) 2 TRUE COPY OF OFFICE LETTERS NO.RT/11012/4/10/MVL DATED 30.6.2010 AND JANUARY, 2011. EXT.R3(c) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C1/10579/TC/2009 DATED 25.3.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. ## **P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.** ------------------------------- ## **W.P (C) No.4519 of 2011** ------------------------------- ## **Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2011** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, a person with disability, owns a Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.KL-23C 6529. As it is not possible for him to drive the car by operating the clutch pedal, the accelerator pedal and the break pedal with his legs, he got a hand control attachment fixed to the steering. The said work was carried out by M/s.Perfect Vehicle Care Center, Malappuram which specialises in installation of such systems. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P3 application dated 24.1.2011 to the first respondent, the registering authority to endorse the alteration on the certificate of registration. Along with that application, he enclosed the original of Ext.P2 certificate dated 22.1.2011 issued by the agency which carried out the alteration. He had earlier applied to the second respondent for the grant of a learner's licence to drive the motor car by submitting the original of Ext.P4 application dated 1.12.2010. The requisite fee was also paid. The second respondent however directed him to submit it before the first respondent. It was thereafter that the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application before the second respondent for endorsing the alteration made to his motor car on the certificate of registration. This writ W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 2 petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to note the alteration made to the petitioner's motor car on the certificate of registration and a further direction to issue a learner's licence to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P4 application. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to get the alteration of the motor car endorsed on the certificate of registration. The petitioner contends that Sri.P.M.Muhammed Nizar who is similarly placed had his motor car altered by installing a similar device, that the Deputy Transport Commissioner approved the alteration and thereupon Sri.P.M.Muhammed Nizar was given permission by the Central Government under section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act to alter his motor car as per Ext.P7 letter dated 10.6.2010. The petitioner contends that as Sri.P.M.Muhammed Nizar was given such permission and the alteration of his motor car was also carried out by M/s.Perfect Vehicle Care Centre, Malappuram which has carried out the work in the petitioner's car also, the petitioner is entitled to have the alteration endorsed on the certificate of registration. Like wise, it is also contended that the first respondent is bound to consider his application for the grant of a learner's licence. 3. The respondents have been served and they have W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 3 entered appearance. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 26.4.2011. Referring to section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is contended that the Central Government is the only competent authority to permit alteration of motor vehicles and that the Central Government have issued guidelines governing grant of necessary permission for alteration of four wheeler vehicles on a case to case basis on the recommendation of the Transport Department of the State Government where the vehicle is registered. It is stated that under the guidelines, to get exemption from section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the alteration is to be done by a reputed work shop authorised by the State Government and that the Central Government have requested the State Governments to authorise workshops as per need, in consultation with the testing agencies or car manufacturers for making necessary modifications in cars to make them suitable to be driven by persons with disability. The third respondent has also stated that he has already taken up the matter with the State Government and obtained the list of workshops which are ready to make alterations in motor cars, but none of the workshops are authorised by any car manufacturer or testing agencies as stipulated in rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and therefore the third respondent and the State Government have been W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 4 unable to give approval to any workshop in Kerala, till date. It is also stated that this fact has been communicated to the Government of India by Ext.R3(a) letter dated 26.4.2010, that the Government of India have in turn sent Ext.R3(b) letter dated 30.6.2010 whereby they have directed the State Government to authorise workshops expeditiously and till then to forward the applications for exemption under section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Central Government along with the recommendation of the State Government. The counter affidavit proceeds to state that in the light of the stand taken by the Central Government, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the parties to forward the petitioner's application to the Central Government through proper channel. 4. The question whether the alteration made by physically handicapped person to his motor car by installing a hand control attachment is required to be approved by any authority was considered by a learned Judge of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in **R.Ramaswamy v. Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Chennai and others** (2009 (1) MLJ 1027). The petitioner therein, a physically handicapped person, had through a private mechanic converted his motor car into a hand operated car. He also owned a scooter which was also modified by adding two supporting wheels for W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 5 maintaining the balance. He thereafter applied to the Regional Transport Officer for the issue of a learners licence to drive both the motor car and the scooter and also to note the alterations made in the certificates of registration of the two vehicles. The Regional Transport Officer got the vehicles inspected through the Break Inspector and forwarded the applications along with the report of the Break Inspector to the Transport Commissioner. However, the Transport Commissioner returned the applications to the Regional Transport Officer who in turn returned them to the applicant. The petitioner thereupon moved the High Court wherein he sought a direction to the Regional Transport Officer to note the alterations in the certificate of registration and to issue a driving license authorising him to drive the said two vehicles. Relying on section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and rule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, it was contended that as the vehicles had been registered by incorporating the specifications made by the manufacturer and they had been altered without the prior approval of the registering authority, the applications filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. After an elaborate survey of the relevant statutory provisions, the learned Judge held that the alteration referred to in section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended means a change in the structure of the W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 6 vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature, that when the change in the structure of the vehicle does not have the effect of changing the basic feature of the vehicle, it does not come within the scope of section 52(1) of the Act and that there is nothing in section 2 (18) of the Motor Vehicles Act which excludes the possibility of a vehicle being re-designed and re-constructed by a mechanic for the use of a person suffering from disability . The learned single Judge held that though in view of the definition of the term 'invalid carriage' in section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, only a motor vehicle which is specially designed and constructed by a manufacturer will fall within the definition and the definition may not include a normal vehicle which has been subsequently specially designed and constructed by a mechanic in a workshop, there is nothing in section 2(18) which excludes the possibility of a vehicle being re-designed and reconstructed by a mechanic for the use of a person suffering from disability. In that view of the matter and on taking note of the fact that no manufacturer of motor cars in India is presently manufacturing invalid carriages, the learned Judge held that a disabled person, who is desirous of driving a vehicle himself, would be unable to do so unless necessary changes or modifications in the vehicle are permitted to be done through private agencies. The W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 7 learned Judge accordingly directed the Regional Transport Officer to inspect the vehicle for the purpose of noting the modification or changes in the certificate of registration and to take a decision as to whether after the alteration, the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and there is no possibility of rectifying the defects. The learned Judge also held that if after such inspection, the competent authority is of the opinion that the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and there is no possibility of rectifying the defects, the competent authority can refuse to note the alterations in the certificate of registration. The learned Judge also directed the Regional Transport Officer to consider the question of the issue of learners licence. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in **R.Ramaswamy v. Secretary, Ministry of Transport, Chennai and others** (supra). I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to inspect the petitioner's motor car to decide whether the altered vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 8 with the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and if there are defects, whether there is any possibility of such defects being rectified and thereafter take a decision as to whether the alteration made by the petitioner can be noted in the certificate of registration. The entire exercise shall be completed and the needful done in the matter within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the first respondent. The first respondent shall also take an appropriate decision on the application, if any, submitted by the petitioner for the issuance of a learner's licence, simultaneously. ## **P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.** nj. ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4519 of 2011 ## **JUDGMENT** Dated:- 19[th] September, 2011 --------------------------------------