Ramesh M.B. v. Transport Commissioner, North Paravur (Transport Department) and connected officials

W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 1 : ## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT ## THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 28TH BHADRA, 1945 ## WP(C) NO. 22565 OF 2023 ## PETITIONER: RAMESH M.B., AGED 36 YEARS S/O. BOSE, MALIYIL HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM, CHERAI. P.O., NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 514. BY ADVS. M.NARENDRA KUMAR B.RAJESH (KOTTAYAM) HARSHADEV M. ## RESPONDENT: - 1 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 014. - 2 THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL ZONE - II, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 030. - 3 THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, (REGISTERING AUTHORITY) SUB REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 512. ## SRI. S. GOPINATHAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 2 : ## **DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.** --------------------------------------------------------W.P.(C). No. 22565 of 2023 --------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of September, 2023. ## **JUDGMENT** The present writ petition has been filed questioning Exhibits P8 and P9 orders, whereby the transport authorities have refused to register the petitioner’s Tata Bharat Stage IV (BS-IV) vehicle on the grounds that his vehicle does not conform to the specifications as prescribed under the Rules and the registration of BS-IV vehicle is prohibited after 30.03.2020. 2. The petitioner had purchased Tata SFC 407/31 EX HT BS IV CAB CHASSIS, the particulars of which have been given in Exhibit P1 sale certificate dated 19.01.2019. The said vehicle was manufactured in the month of September, 2018. The petitioner had obtained temporary registration on the said CHASSIS on 23.01.2019, as is evident from Exhibit P2. The petitioner took the vehicle to the body builder. The temporary registration of the said vehicle expired on 17.02.2019. The petitioner produced the said vehicle as per Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act, 1988" for short) only on 16.02.2020 ie., after one year from the expiry of temporary registration. However, at the time of inspection, the petitioner failed to produce the following documents: W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 3 : - 1) Form 22A which is in the form obtained from the body builder as per Rule 47(1) of CMR, 1989. - 2) Installation Certificate of fast tag. - 3) Valid Insurance Certificate of the vehicle as per section 146(1) of MV Act (Amendment) - 4) Installation Certificate of GPS. 3. The petitioner was advised to produce the aforesaid documents and vehicle for inspection along with those documents. But, he did not produce the same in due course. Instead, he filed W.P.(C) No. 16371 of 2024 before this Court. This Court, as per Exhibit P7 judgment, directed the Additional Registering Authority, North Paravur to consider the application of the petitioner for registration as per the provisions of the Act, 1988 and the Rules made therein and also as per the directions issued by the Apex Court for registration of BS-IV vehicles, as expeditiously as possible. The said judgment was produced by the petitioner before the registering authority on 28.01.2021. The petitioner was directed to produce the vehicle along with related documents after constructing the body and the same were produced on 01.11.2021. Pursuant to the same, the Registering Authority considered Exhibits P1 and P2 and rejected the petitioner’s application as per Exhibit P8 order dated 01.11.2021 i.e., after 10 months of date of production of Exhibit P7 judgment. During inspection, the Field Officer has noted W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 4 : ## certain defects as per AIS093, as under: “a) Illegal alteration on type approved cab & Chassis – that is welded extension of 15 cm to the mainframe-against Truck Body Code- AIS093 ( 3.4.8) which states that 'No part of Chassis shall be altered which affects the stability of the vehicle. " b) Sub frame materials used is wood which is against AIS093(3.3.3.4) which allows the material used for subframe construction shall be steel or aluminum alloy or any composite material with adequate strength to bear impact loads. iii) The sub frame shall be mounted on chassis by means of attachment plates or outrigger brackets or directly on chassis to prevent longitudinal movement of load body in case of braking and sudden acceleration.” 4. On the basis of the said report, after inspection, the Additional Registering Authority, North Paravur, as per Exhibit P8 order, rejected the petitioner’s application for permanent registration of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Section 57 of the Act, 1988 before the appellate authority and the same was dismissed as per Exhibit P9 order dated 25.02.2023, which is impugned in the present writ petition. 5. The appellate authority has considered the report of inspection and the statement of the petitioner in detail and found that the petitioner had purchased the vehicle from an authorized W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 5 : dealer and constructed it as a light goods carriage with a closed body. Even though temporary registration of the vehicle was expired on 17.02.2019, the vehicle was produced for inspection as per Section 44 of the Act, 1988 on 16.02.2020 i.e., almost one year after the expiry of registration and he has failed to produce necessary documents for the registration of the said vehicle. Even after advising him to produce the vehicle after rectifying the defects found during first inspection, along with necessary documents, he has produced the vehicle only on 01.11.2021. 6. On the second inspection, it was found that the petitioner had not rectified the defects and he had not build the body of the vehicle as per the standards of AIS093, even after the repeated directions on the basis of the inspection of the petitioner’s vehicle. 7. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that the time for registration of BS-IV vehicles had been extended by the Apex Court upto 30.09.2020 and that the said time has also expired and therefore, the vehicle cannot be registered. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, submits that the Apex Court in a subsequent proceedings in M. _**C. Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.**_ (Order dated 30.11.2021 in I.A. Nos. 116007 & 115987/2020, 129302 & 129306/2020 in W.P.(C) No. 13029 of 1985), while considering the applications filed by W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 6 : owners/dealers of BS-IV vehicles which have been granted temporary registration prior to 31.03.2020, directed the transport authorities to register BS-IV vehicles which had been sold prior to 31.03.2020, after a careful scrutiny of the records of the vehicle regarding its genuineness and that the sales were done prior to 31.03.2020. 9. In the present writ petition, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was purchased prior to 31.03.2020 and the vehicle is BS-IV complaint vehicle. The petitioner has been making efforts to get his vehicle registered since 2020. However, for the defects pointed out by the registering authority, the petitioner’s vehicle could not be registered before the cut off date fixed by the Apex Court i.e. 30.09.2020. He further submits that the petitioner’s vehicle does not have any defect and the defects, if any, pointed out by the registering authority shall be removed within a period of one month from today. He further submits that the petitioner will produce the vehicle for inspection on or before 18.10.2023 and if the vehicle is conforming to AIS 093 standards, his vehicle may be registered. 10. Considering the above submission and taking note of the order of the Apex Court dated 30.11.2021, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to produce his vehicle before the Joint Regional Transport Authority, N. Paravur, W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 7 : respondent No. 3, for inspection along with all the necessary documents. The said authority is directed to conduct inspection of the petitioner’s vehicle and if the petitioner’s vehicle is conforming to the standards of AIS093, and has all relevant documents, the same should registered, subject to the payment of tax, penalty and fine as per the Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder. 11. It is made clear that on production of the vehicle for inspection, if it is found that the vehicle is not conforming to the standards, no writ petition or any interlocutory application shall be entrained by this Court further. It is also made clear that the judgment is passed in the facts and circumstances of the case and the same shall not be treated as a precedent. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands finally disposed of. sd/- **DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDGE.** ## _**Rv**_ W.P.(C) No. 22565/2023 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22565/2023** ## PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT -P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT -P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 23.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FORM 20 EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 22 A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BODY BUILDER DATED 06.03.2021 EXHIBIT -P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE REGARDING INSTALLATION OF GPS DATED 24.03.2020 EXHIBIT-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2020 TYPED COPY OF EXT.P6 EXHIBIT-P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2020 IN W.P. ( C ) 16371 OF 2020 EXHIBIT-P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO. C2/12278/21 DATED 01.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY EXHIBIT-P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. CZ2C/10/CZ-II/2023 DATED 25.02.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SEVENTH PARA OF THE DIRECTION OF THE APEX COURT RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy rv PS To Judge.