REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC.versusK. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC.

                         [2019] 1 S.C.R. 179                             179


       REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER & ORS. ETC.                            A
                                  v.
                K. JAYACHANDRA & ANR. ETC.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 219-222 of 2019)
                        JANUARY 09, 2019                                 B
         [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         C
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
                                                                         D
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                                    E

      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              F
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      G
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
                                                                         H
                                 179
180            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C     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]
D
             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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
  REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                       181


so as to permit the alteration as prohibited under section 52(1)     A
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
                                                                     B
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     C
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       D
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]
                                                                     E
     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               F
     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         G
     (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
                                                                     H
182             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           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.
B                                        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
C     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.
D
            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
E     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,
F
      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
G     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
H
   REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                183
                [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

does not fetter the powers of the Regional Transport Authorities to            A
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
                                                                               B
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      C
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   D
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.                                                                         E

       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             F
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           G
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.
                                                                               H
184             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           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
B
      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
C     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
D     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.
E     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
F           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
G
            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
H           in the certificate of registration.
   REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                185
                [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

      (2) Where a registering authority has received notice under sub-         A
      section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof,
      communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to
      the proposed alteration or otherwise:
      Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not
      received any such communication within the said period of seven          B
      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,      C
      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         D
      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   E
      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.”                        F
                                                      (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:
                                                                               G
      “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.-
                                                                               H
186      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     (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
B     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
C     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
D     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 sub-
      section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof,
      communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to
E     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.
F     (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
G
      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),
H
  REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                187
               [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

     the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of the making        A
     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          B
     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      C
     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:                                                  D
     “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.
                                                                              E
     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         F
     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         G
     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,
                                                                              H
188            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           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)
B
             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:
C
              “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:
D           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
E
            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;
F           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,
G           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.

H
   REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                               189
                [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

      (3) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle without       A
      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        B
      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        C
      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.                            D
      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)
                                                                              E
      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
                                                                              F
      importer] of motor vehicles [including trailers, semi trailers and
      modular hydraulic trailer] [including registered association
      (identified by the concerned State Transport Department) for E-
      rickshaw 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          G
      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,
                                                                              H
190            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           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:]
B           [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
C           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
D           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
E           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
F           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
G           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.
H     Rule 93(4) with overall height. Rule 93(6) with overhang etc.
  REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                191
               [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

       16. The relevant Rules 96, 103 and 261 of the Kerala Motor             A
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            B
      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       C
      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       D
      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            E
      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.
                                                                              F
      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.                                                             G
      (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:
                                                                              H
192            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A           (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
B           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
C           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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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
H
   REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                193
                [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

permissible to alter the vehicle in derogation to the provisions of the Act.   A
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.
                                                                               B
       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             C
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                   D
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             E
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                 F
      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         G
      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
                                                                               H
194             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A            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.
B            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
C            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
D            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
E            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
F            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
G
             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
H     interest.
  REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                               195
               [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

      22. Before dilating further upon the issue we take note of the         A
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      B
      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          C
      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      D
      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          E
      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         F
      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          G
      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
                                                                             H
196      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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
C     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
D     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 re-
      enacted with certain changes as Section 52(3) of the Amended
E     Act requiring the owner to report regarding the alteration to the
      registering authority. Under Section 52(4) of the New Act, the
      owner was required to report about the alteration, made either
      with the approval or deemed approval of the registering authority,
      or by reason of replacement of engine, without such approval, to
F     the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resided and
      shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together
      with the prescribed fee “in order that particulars of the alteration
      may be entered therein”.
      8.6 A minute examination of the provisions makes it clear that the
G     expression “particulars of the alteration may be entered therein”
      as contained in Section 52(4) of the New Act, now reads as “in
      order that particulars of the registration may be entered therein”
      in the Amended Act. It is crystal clear that the word “registration”
      in the Amended Act is an obvious typographical mistake, which
      has been inadvertently incorporated instead of the word
H
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                 197
             [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

  “alteration”. What is intended is that the particulars of the alteration   A
  made in a vehicle should be incorporated in the certificate of
  registration.
  8.7 Sections 52(5) and 52(6) of the New Act, have been now re-
  enacted as Sections 52(4) and 52(5) of the Amended Act
  respectively. The Amended Act, however, contains an important              B
  explanation, which was absent in the Old Act or the New Act.
  The explanation is to the effect that, for the purpose of Section
  52, “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which
  results in a change in its basic feature.
  9. Section 52(1) of the Amended Act obviously is not very happily          C
  worded. By altering the vehicle the particulars contained in the
  certificate of registration cannot be a variance with those specified
  by the manufacturers. The certificate of registration contains some
  of the vital particulars of the vehicles. The real meaning is that
  the particulars of alteration to be incorporated in the Certificate
  of Registration as contemplated in Section 52(3) of the Amended            D
  Act are at variance with those originally specified by the
  manufacturer. When the provision is read in the light of the
  explanation, it is obvious that changes or modification which do
  not result in a change in basic feature need not be considered as
  an alteration within the meaning of Section 52 of the Amended              E
  Act.
  ……
  11.1 A comparison of the relevant provisions contained in the Old
  Act and the New Act with the provisions of the Amendment Act
  clearly indicates that the Legislature has dispensed with the              F
  requirement of obtaining permission relating to every change or
  modification effected in a motor vehicle. In fact, the 1988 Act
  itself has been amended in such a manner as to make it unnecessary
  for seeking permission to make such minor change or modification.
  Moreover, every minor change or modification is not necessarily            G
  considered as an alteration within the meaning of Section 52 of
  the Amended Act. In the present case, the RTO has practically
  applied the provisions, which were available before the amendment
  was effected in 2000, without taking note of such amendment.”

                                                                             H
198             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A            23 It has been observed by the High Court of Madras that an
      alternation in the vehicle is not permissible which may be at variance
      with the particulars contained in the certificate of registration which
      contains vital particulars of the vehicle and the permissible changes or
      modifications and which do not result in change in the basic feature,
      need not be considered as alternation within the meaning of section 52
B
      of the Amended Act.
             24. The decision in the case of K.S. Rajesh Kumar v. The
      Additional Registering Authority of Kerala High Court delivered on
      1.2.2010 has also been referred to wherein the question of alteration in
      the vehicle came up for consideration. The passenger vehicle was
C     purchased as defined in section 2(17) of the M.V. Act. The petitioner
      wanted to convert the same into the vehicle that could be used as a
      cinema outdoor unit by fixing a generator set therein. The Court held
      that the petitioner has not made any alteration to either the chassis or the
      body of the vehicle as the manufacturer has manufactured only the
D     chassis of the vehicle and not its superstructure. In place of the seats
      meant for passengers, the petitioner was fitting only a generator which
      alteration was permissible. There was no violation of the provisions of
      section 52.
             25. The decision in Mohd. Javeed v. Union of India & Ors.
E     (2001) 9 ALD 88 = 2009 1 ALT 507 has also been referred by the
      learned amicus curiae. In the said case chassis were changed. The Court
      held that the chassis is the base frame of a motor vehicle and no doubt is
      an important feature of the vehicle. Whether the change of the chassis
      would amount to change in the structure of the vehicle. The replacement
      became necessary on account of the accident. There was no other
F     change in the structure of the vehicle. It was held that section 52(3)
      enables the owner of the vehicle to replace the engine of the vehicle but
      the factum of replacement has to be reported to the Authority within 14
      days. On the same analogy, the Court held that the chassis was changed
      by the manufacturer with the approval of the insurance company and
G     the bank and change became necessary due to the damage caused to
      the chassis owing to the accident. Thus the refusal of registration was
      held to be bad in law and set aside. In fact, there was no change of
      chassis except the replacement in the said case.
          26. The decision in V.N. Dharmakrishnan v. Deputy
H     Commissioner of Transport, AIR 2006 Mad. 340 has also been placed
   REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                  199
                [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

for consideration. The question arose whether a Delivery Van Goods               A
Carrier can be altered as an ambulance. The Court held it to be a clear
violation of the provisions of the M.V. Act and using goods carriage as
an ambulance for which permit had already been canceled, cannot be
condoned on the ground that the 5th respondent was rendering some
free service. The decision turned on its own facts.
                                                                                 B
        27. The very object of the amendment of section 52(1) 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        C
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              D
52(1) empowers the Central Government to prescribe specifications,
conditions for approval, retro-fitment and other 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         E
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          F
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.                                                                   G

       28. The object and the clear intent of amended section 52 is that
the vehicle cannot be so altered that the particulars contained in the
certificate of registration are at variance with those “originally specified
by the manufacturer”. The manufacturer issues sale certificate in Form
                                                                                 H
200            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A     21 which has been framed under Rule 47(1)(a) of the Central Rules.
      Rule 47(1)(a) is extracted hereunder :
            “47. Application for registration of motor vehicles.— (1) An
            application for registration of a motor vehicle shall be made in
            Form 20 to the registering authority within a period of 1[seven
B           days] from the date of taking delivery of such vehicle, excluding
            the period of journey and shall be accompanied by—
            (a) sale certificate in Form 21;”
              29. The particulars are to be specified by the manufacturer. An
      application for registration of the motor vehicle has to be filed in Form
C     20. It has to accompany a sale certificate issued by the manufacturer or
      dealer etc. as the case may be as provided in Rule 47(1)(a) and (d).
      Form 20 is extracted hereunder:


D




E




F




G




H
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA   201
             [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

                                               A




                                               B




                                               C




                                               D




                                               E




                                               F




                                               G




                                               H
202   SUPREME COURT REPORTS   [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E




F




G




H
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA   203
             [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

                                               A




                                               B




                                               C




                                               D




                                               E




                                               F




                                               G




                                               H
204             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E




F



            30. Form 21 as provided in Rule 47(a) and (d) contain sale certificate
      issued by the manufacturer same is extracted hereunder:
G




H
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA   205
             [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

                                               A




                                               B




                                               C




                                               D




                                               E




                                               F




                                               G




                                               H
206             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2019] 1 S.C.R.


A




B




            31. The certificate of registration has to be issued in Form 23 as
C     provided in Rule 48 of the Central Rules. Rule 48 deals with the issue of
      the certificate of registration under Rule 47. Rule 48 is extracted
      hereunder :
            “48. Issue of certificate of registration.— On receipt of an
            application under rule 47 and after verification of the documents
D           furnished therewith, the registering authority shall, subject to the
            provisions of section 44, issue to the owner of the motor vehicle a
            certificate of registration in Form 23 or Form 23A, as may be
            specified in the Notification issued by the concerned State
            Government or Union Territory Administration [within the period
            of thirty days from the receipt of such an application]:
E
            [Provided that where the certificate of registration pertains to a
            transport vehicle it shall be handed over to the registered owner
            only after recording the certificate of fitness in Form 38 [within
            the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such an
            application].]”
F
             32. 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 Act and what is prohibited therein to allow the same is
      not the intendment of the rules contained in the Chapter. Various provisions
G     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. Such particulars cannot be
H
   REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER v. K. JAYACHANDRA                                   207
                [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

altered which have been specified by the manufacturer for the purpose             A
of entry in the certificate of registration. 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
                                                                                  B
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 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           C
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
                                                                                  D
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.
       33. In our considered opinion the Division Bench in the impugned
judgment of the High Court of Kerala has failed to give effect to the             E
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           F
per the specifications originally made by the manufacturer. Circular No.7/
2006 is also to be read in that spirit. Authorities to act accordingly.
       34. Resultantly, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and
is hereby set aside. The appeals are allowed.
                                                                                  G
Kalpana K. Tripathy                                            Appeals allowed.




                                                                                  H