K. J. Joseph J. - (1.)I. Petitioner in this original petition seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorari or appropriate orders to quash Ext. P2 order passed by the registering authority, namely; the respondent herein. He also seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus or order compelling the respondent to assign new registration mark for the vehicle PY-03/0586 with the seating capacity vide 45 in all and to endorse the transfer of ownership of vehicle in favour of the petitioner.
(2.)I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.
According to the petitioner, the vehicle in question was originally registered in the State of Kerala, in Wynad District as KLW 2530. The details of the description of the vehicle had been specified in the registration certificate, copy of which is produced as Ext. P1. It is seen from ext. P1 that the vehicle has been registered in the State of Kerala on 23-10-1986 and at the time of registration, the colour of the body of the vehicle was red and the year of the manufacture of the vehicle is of the year 1986. In column 16 of Ext. P1 the gross weight of the vehicle has been specifically stated as 15,240 Kgs. and base of the wheel base was noted as 519. 5 cros. With the above description, the vehicle provided foi45 seats in all and the registering authority had registered the vehicle and assigned the registration mark as KLW 2530. It is the further case of the petitioner that the ownership of the said vehicle had been transferred in favour of three other persons and the petitioner has purchased the vehicle on 3-7-1995.

Since the petitioner is a resident within Thalassery taluk, he submitted necessary applications before the respondent on 22-8-1995 for assignment of new registration mark for the vehicle. By that time, the vehicle had been sold to a person, who is residing in the Union Territory of pondicherry and the vehicle was assigned a registration number as PY-03/0586 with effect from 7-1-1994. He has also submitted necessary application for transfer of the ownership of the vehicle and also forgiving a new registration mark for the said vehicle as required under Rule 54 of the Central Motor vehicle Rules in the form prescribed, namely: From No. 27. The petitioner has produced a no-objection certificate from the financier with whom the vehicle had been hypothecated under hire purchase agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was produced before the respondent for inspection on 24-8-1995 as directed by the respondent. But, therefore, he was served with ext. P2 communication by the respondent, wherein the petitioner was informed that on a comparative scrutiny of the particulars contained in the registration certificate with the physical features of the vehicle, it is found that the body of the vehicle was reconstructed after its original registration and hence the petitioner is directed to produce the vehicle for inspection after fitting maximum seats in compliance of Rule 269 (1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules subject to the provisions of minimum seating capacity directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. The petitioner was. also informed that the existing number of seat shall not be reduced. Petitioner challenges the validity of Ext. P2 order passed by the respondent under Article 226 of the constitution of India.

(3.)THIS court issued notice to the respondent and pursuant to that on behalf of the respondent, a statement has been filed, wherein it is stated that the vehicle was produced for inspection before the Assistant Motor vehicles Inspector, Thalassery on 24-8-1995 for the purpose of assignment of fresh registration mark. On a comparative scrutiny of the particulars contained in the registration certificate with the physical features of the vehicle, it is found that the body of the vehicle is reconstructed after its original registration. Under Rule 269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the petitioner is bound to provide the maximum number of seats possible in the existing body to the satisfaction -of the registering authority subject to the minimum required under sub rule ( I) of Rule 269 and therefore, Ext. P2 order passed by the respondent is perfectly justifiable. It is also stated that on measuring the seating arrangement, dimension and other relevant particulars, it is found that the particulars entered in the certificate of registration does not tally with its body dimensions and measurements. The measurements shows that the over all length of the vehicle after alteration is 910 cros. , whereas in the registration certificate it is 877cros. The over hand as per inspection certificate is 275 cros. , whereas in the registration certificate it is 260 cros. , and as such it is to be concluded that alteration and reconstruction of the body of the vehicle was made unauthorisedly without the sanction of the registering authority. The fact regarding the alteration of the body of the vehicle is not 'recorded in the registration certificate.
Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is extracted below: "52: 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 has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may, 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 per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. As stated earlier, the unladen weight noted in the certificate of registration is 6620 kgs. and the gross vehicle weight, as certified by the manufacturer is 15240 kgs. There is no case for the respondent in his statement that the petitioner has in any way increased the unladen weight of the vehicle or the alteration effected in the over hand of the vehicle had increased the unladen weight. It is the case of the respondent that over all length of the vehicle after alteration is found to be 910 cros. , whereas in the registration certificate, it is noted as 877 cros. It is also stated that the over hand as per inspection certificate is 275 cros. , whereas in the registration certificate, it is noted as 260 cros. There is no case for the respondent that by virtue of this alteration, the unladen weight of the vehicle had been in any way increased. If, as a matter of fact, there is any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicles by virtue of the alteration effected in the over hand as well as the over ail length of the vehicle, it would have been made mention in the report made by the inspecting authorities. Therefore, it has to be held that there is no change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the increase in the over all length of the vehicle or the alteration effected in the over hand of the vehicle.

;