Heard the petitioner in person, Mr. D. Gandhi Raj, Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. D. Sivaraman for Respondent No. 4.

2. The petitioner, a physically handicapped person, is unable to use his both legs. He has purchased a scooter under the brand name “Honda Activa”, which has been registered as TN58 M 2760. Subsequently, through a private mechanic, the petitioner has added two supporting wheels only for the purpose of maintaining the balance. Similarly, the petitioner has purchased a Ford car registered as TN59AB 8894 which has been converted into hand operation mode through a private mechanic. The petitioner sought for information from the Regional Transport Office regarding the procedure to obtain license to enable the petitioner to drive the vehicles. The RTO replied that alteration in the vehicles should be approved by the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune. The petitioner then contacted the Automotive Research Association of India seeking approval of the specially designed vehicles for the disabled persons and the Automotive Research Association informed that such approval can be given to the company manufactured vehicles and not for the vehicles modified by private individuals.

2.1 The petitioner then applied to third respondent, namely, the Regional Transport Officer for issuance of Learner's licence in respect of scooter and also the car. He also applied for permission for noting the alterations made in the two vehicles and had paid the fees on 9.10.2007 The third respondent had instructed the Brake Inspector to inspect the vehicle and on the basis of such report, third respondent forwarded along with the inspection report of the Brake Inspector to the Transport Commissioner, Respondent No. 2 and sought for clarification. Thereafter, the third respondent intimated the petitioner regarding the objections raised by the Transport Commissioner and returned the application vide letter dated 21.1.2008

2.2 In the above undisputed factual backdrop, the petitioner has filed the writ petition for issuing a direction to the third respondent to issue driving licence to the petitioner authorizing him to drive the two vehicles.

3. The gist of the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent is as foliows: —

The petitioner is a physically handicapped person and had reported the alteration in respect of LMV Car TN59 AB5894 and Motor Cycle TN 58M 2760 as “invalid carriages”. On inspection of the vehicles, the Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade I has noted that two additional wheels were fitted with the back wheel and the vehicle has been altered as invalid carriage. In respect of LMV car, the acceleration control has been mounted on the gear rod and below that, the brake control by means of leverage, the clutch is activated by pushing down the lever attached with the gear rod. These modifications have been effected by a private workshop. In view of Section 52(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no owner of a motor vehicle shall alter the vehicle at variance with those originally specified in the manufacture and under Section 52(1)(b) there was necessity of prior approval of the Registering Authority to make alterations. Similarly reference has been made to Rule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and it has been stated that a certificate is required to be issued by the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune. Two vehicles in question have already been registered by incorporating the specifications made by the manufacturer and the petitioner has altered without prior approval of the Registering Authority as contemplated under Sections 52(1) (a) and 52(1) (b) and Rule 105 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. When these aspects were brought to the notice of the Transport Commissioner and clarification was sought for, the Transport Commissioner has opined that the vehicles could not be treated as “invalid carriages” in contravention of Section 52(1). Reference has been made to Section 8(4) and asserted that such licence to drive an invalid carriage can be issued only to the persons owning the vehicles registered as invalid carriages. In view of the above clarification issued by the Transport Commissioner, the application filed by the petitioner for permission to alter the vehicles as invalid carriages was returned as unentertaintable vide letter dated 21.1.2008 It is further stated that as against such intimation, the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Transport Commissioner. For the aforesaid reasons, it has been submitted that no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

4. In course of hearing, this Court had felt the necessity of impleading the Central Government as a party, which was accordingly suo motu impleaded as a party and notice was accepted by Mr. D. Sivaraman. Since the questions raised relate to interpretation of the provisions of law and no factual dispute was involved, there was no necessity to wait for a formal counter of the Central Government and the matter is taken up for final disposal today on consent of the party-in-person as well as the counsels appearing for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition should not be entertained, as the petitioner has got alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Transport Commissioner. This objection cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the letter dated 21.1.2008 written by the RTO clearly indicates that such reply was given after obtaining the clarification from the Transport Commissioner. As a matter of fact, the RTO has also extracted the clarification issued by the Transport Commissioner. It is therefore obvious that even if the petitioner would file any appeal before the Transport Commissioner, it would be an exercise in futility inasmuch as the Transport Commissioner has already given an opinion in one-way or the other. Therefore, this preliminary objection is not accepted.

6. The following questions arise for determination: —

(1) Whether any prior permission was required before the petitioner effected the modification in the vehicles?

(2) Whether the approval of the Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, is required for the purpose of noting the modifications in the Certificate of Registration? and

(3) Whether the vehicles can be treated as invalid carriages and driving licence can be issued accordingly?

7. For convenience, the first two questions are taken up together. 8. Before the advent of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in operation. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has also been amended from time to time, more particularly by Act 27 of 2000. Since the changes made in the Motor Vehicles Act from time to time have some bearing in considering the questions raised, it would be necessary to extract and compare the necessary provisions at the appropriate place. For convenience, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as originally enacted and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended by Act 27 of 2000 are referred to as “Old Act”, “New Act” and “Amended Act” respectively.

8.1 Section 32 of the Old Act is as follows: —

“32. Alteration in motor vehicle: — (1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate, unless -

(a) he has given notice to the; registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides of the alteration he proposes to make; and

(b) he has obtained the approval of the registering authority to make such alteration:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration.

(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 the proposed alteration or otherwise:

Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette authorize, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to change its engine number by replacing the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority.

(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under sub-section (2) or by reason of any change in its engine number without such approval under subsection (3), the owner of the vehicle shall within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.

(5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.

8.2 Section 52 of the New Act was as follows: —

“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 be of the alteration he proposes to make; and

(b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration:

Provided that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration:

Provided further that modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power or any other fuel or source of energy other than liquid petroleum gas shall be treated as an alteration but that shall be subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) Where a registering authority receives a 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 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 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, authorize, 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 replace the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority.

(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under sub-section (2) or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.

(5) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.

(6) No person holding a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle for which approval of the registering authority is required under sub-section (1), except with the written consent of the registered owner.”

8.3 Section 52 was amended by Act 27 of 2000. Section 52 of the Amended Act is as follows: —

“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 at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer:

Provided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of the engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy including battery, compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of energy, by fitment of a conversion kit, such modification shall be carried out subject to such conditions as may be prescribed:

Provided further that the Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits:

Provided also that the Central Government may grant 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, authorize, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, 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.

(3) Where any alteration has been made in motor vehicle without the approval of registering authority or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under sub-section (2), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of registration may be entered therein:

(4) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.

(5) Subject to the provisions made under sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) no person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle except with the written consent of the registered owner.

Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a “change in its basic feature.”

8.4 A comparison of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that Section 32(1)(a) and (b) of the Old Act along with the proviso had been practically re-enacted as Section 52(1)(a) and (b) of the New Act. However, in the New Act, a second proviso was added which permitted modification of the engine for facilitating its operation by a different type of fuel. Section 32(2) of the Old Act along with the proviso was re-enacted as Section 52(2) of the New Act. As per Section 32(1) and 32(2) of the Old Act, corresponding to Section 52(1) and 52(2) of the new Act, before making any alteration, the owner was required to give notice to the registering authority and obtain permission. The registering authority was required to communicate its approval or disapproval within seven days and if no such communication was served within the period of seven days, approval of such authority to the proposed alteration was deemed to have been given. Section 32(3) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(3) of the New Act, contained an enabling provision whereunder the State Government could authorize the owners having ten or more transport vehicles to change its engine number by replacing such engine without the approval of the registering authority. Section 32(4) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(4) of the New Act, cast a duty on the owner of the vehicle to report the alteration made with actual or deemed approval as contemplated under Section 32(2) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(2) of the New Act or, and without approval as contemplated under Section 32(3) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(3) of the New Act “in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered in the certificate of registration”. Section 32(5) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(5) of the New Act envisaged that the registering authority making any such entry should communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority. Section 52(6) of the New Act contained a new provision laying down that a person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement cannot make the alterations contemplated in Section 52(1) of the New Act without the written consent of the registered owner.

8.5 After amendment of Section 52 of the New Act under Act 27 of 2000, Section 52(1) has been retained as Section 52(1) with significant modification. It is important to notice that the provisions contained in Section 32(1)(a) & (b) of the Old Act corresponding to Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to giving of notice and obtaining of approval of the registering authority have been deleted in the Amended Act. The amended section does not contain any provision relating to giving of notice or obtaining of approval. First proviso to Section 52(1) of the New Act has also been deleted and second proviso to Section 52(1) of the New Act relating to modification of engine has been re-enacted as the first proviso to Section 52(1) of the Amended Act. Moreover, two other provisos have been added to Section 52(1). Since the earlier provision in Section 52(1)(a) & (b) of the New Act relating to 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 re-numbered 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 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 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”.

8.6 A minute examination of the provisions makes it clear that the 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 “alteration”. What is intended is that the particulars of the alteration 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 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 worded. By altering the vehicle the particulars contained in the certificate of registration cannot be 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 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 change in basic feature need not be considered as alteration within the meaning of Section 52 of the Amended Act.

9.1 A careful reading of Section 52 of the Amended Act indicate as follows: —

(1) “Alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature (This is apparent from the Explanation).

(2) Owner of a vehicle shall not alter the vehicle in such a manner that particulars of the altered vehicle would be at variance with the particulars specified by the manufacturer.

(3) However, engine or any part thereof can be modified for facilitating its operation by different type of fuel or source of energy by fitment of a conversion kit. This, however, is subject to the conditions as may be prescribed by the rules. The Central Government may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for such conversion kits.

(4) The Central Government may grant exemption for the alteration of the vehicle in a manner other than specified above for any specific purpose.

(5) The State Government is empowered to issue notification permitting any person owning not less than 10 transport vehicles to alter any vehicle so as to replace the engine with engine of the same make and type without the approval of the registering authority.

(6) If any alteration is made in the vehicle without the approval of the registering authority, the owner shall report such alteration to the registering authority within 14 days together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of alteration made be entered in the certificate of registration.

10. The provisions contained in Section 52, as they stand now, do not contemplate any specific prior permission for making any alteration, save and except what is contemplated in the present Section 52(2). Moreover, Section 52(1) as it stands now contemplates that the owner of a motor vehicle should not alter the vehicle in such a manner that the particulars of the alteration would be at variance with the particulars originally specified by the Manufacturer. Where the change in the structure of the vehicle does not have the effect of changing the basic features of the vehicle, it does not come within the prohibition contemplated in Section 52(1). The above becomes clear if reference is made to the Explanation, which lays down 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.

11. The RTO in his letter has referred to the provisions contained in Section 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b). A careful perusal of the provisions contained in the Amended Act clearly indicate that the RTO has considered the matter in the light of the unamended provisions. The provisions contained in Section 52 of the New Act, as already noticed, have undergone extensive amendment as per Act 27 of 2000. The RTO has based his reply on the provisions contained in the New Act before such amendment was effected by Act 27 of 2000. After such amendment, there is no provision as 52(1)(a) and 52(1)(b). It is apparent that Section 52(1)(a), as it stood before amendment, now corresponds to Section 52(1) of the Amended Act and 52(1)(b) is no longer there in the statute book.

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 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 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.

12. Section 110(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government to make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles with respect to all or any of the matters indicated.

12.1 Section 111(1) empowers the State Government to make rules regulating the construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles and trailers with respect to all matters other than the matters specified in Section 110(1).

13. Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 contains the provisions relating to construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles. It is thus obvious that such Chapter V of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules is co-relatable to the matters enumerated under Section 110(1) of the Act.

13.1 Rule 126 is to the following effect: —

“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 of motor vehicles other than trailers and semi-trailers shall submit the prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured by him for test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or the Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of the provisions of the Act and these Rules.”

13.2 Reference has been made to Rule 126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. Rule 126 has already been extracted. This Rule refers to the obligation of the manufacturer of motor vehicles to submit prototype of the vehicle to be manufactured for the test to certain specified agencies such as the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment of the Ministry of Defence of the Government of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune or the Central Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP), or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun. The purpose of submitting such prototype is to obtain a certificate by the concerned agency as to the compliance of the provisions of the Act and these Rules. As per Section 2(21-A) “manufacturer” means a person who is engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles. It is thus obvious that Rule 126 is applicable to the manufacturer who intends to manufacture the vehicles. The provisions contained in such Rule obviously cannot be made applicable to an individual owner of a vehicle, who gets the vehicle modified after purchasing from the dealer.

14. Reference has also been made to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is framed in exercise of powers conferred by sections 28, 38, 65, 95, 107, 111 and 138 read with section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Rule 101, 104 and 105 are extracted hereunder: —

“101. Alteration — notice form.- The Notice to the Registering Authority under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 52 shall be in Form NAMV and it shall be sent in duplicate by registered post. The registering Authority shall return a copy of the notice signifying its approval or disapproval in Part II thereof.

104. Change of classification.- No alteration involving or likely to involve a change in the type or classification of vehicle shall be regarded as an alteration for the purpose of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 52 and prior approval of the Registering Authority shall be obtained for any such alteration.

105. Vehicle to be produced.- The Registering Authority may, before entering in the Registering Certificate particulars of any alteration or change made in the vehicle, require the owner to produce the vehicle before itself or any other person authorized by it for the purpose of inspection of the alteration or the change made.”

15. In the counter filed by the respondents there is reference to the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, more particularly Rule 105. Rule 105 merely contemplates that before entering the alteration or change in the registering certificate, the vehicle is required to be produced for the purpose of inspection of the alteration or the change made. In the present case, it is not in dispute that in fact the vehicles of the petitioner have been inspected by the Motor Vehicles Inspector on behalf of the registering authority.

15.1 The question is what is the purpose insisting on production of the vehicle before the competent authority.

15.2 Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the registering authority to refuse to register any motor vehicle, if such authority has reason to believe that the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act or the Rules made thereunder.

15.3 Section 53(1)(a) empowers the competent authority to suspend the registration of a vehicle, if such competent authority has reason to believe that if any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction is in such a condition that its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Suspension of registration contemplated under Section 53(1)(a) is to remain in vogue until the defects are rectified to the satisfaction of such authority.

15.4 Section 54 empowers such authority to cancel the registration when such suspension of registration has continued without interruption for a period of not less than six months. Under Section 55(3), the competent authority has power to order examination of a motor vehicle and if satisfied that the vehicle is in such a condition that it is incapable of being used or its use in a public place would constitute a danger to the public and such vehicle is beyond reasonable repair, to cancel registration after giving opportunity to the owner to make representation.

15.5 The provisions, which are contained in Chapter IV relating to registration of motor vehicles, have to be read along with Section 52. Section 52(3) contemplates that whenever any alteration is made, the owner of the vehicle is required to report such alteration to the competent authority. Rule 105 envisages that the vehicle is required to be produced before the competent authority. Thus, if the competent authority comes to the conclusion that a motor vehicle, which is altered before the registration, complies with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, such vehicle may be registered. On the other hand, such competent authority may refuse to register any motor vehicle, if the vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Similarly, since registration of a vehicle can be suspended under Section 53 or cancelled under Sections 54 and 55, if any alteration is made in respect of a vehicle already registered, at the time of noting such alteration as contemplated under Section 52(3), the competent authority can apply the very same standard and refuse to note the particulars. In other words, if the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the altered vehicle is mechanically defective or fails to comply with the requirements of the 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, such competent authority can refuse to note the alterations in the certificate of registration.

16. The next question is, whether the vehicles can be treated as “invalid carriages” and driving licence can be issued accordingly.

17. Chapter II refers to licensing of drivers of motor vehicles. Section 3 lays down the necessity for driving licence. Section 8 relates to grant of learner's licence. As per Section 8(4), a licensing authority has the authority to refuse a learner's licence if it appears that the applicant is suffering from any disability which is likely to cause the driving by him to be a source of danger for the public or to the passengers. The proviso however specifically contemplates that a learner's licence limited to driving an invalid carriage may be issued if the applicant is fit to drive such a carriage.

Section 10(2)(c) contemplates that a learner's licence or a driving licence can be issued entitling the holder to drive an “invalid carriage”.

18. Chapter IV relates to Registration of Motor Vehicles. Section 41(3) provides that the registering authority shall issue a certificate of registration in such form and containing such particulars and information and in such form as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

18.1 As per Section 41(4), in addition to the other particulars required to be included in the certificate of registration, it shall also specify the type of the motor vehicle, being a type as the Central Government specify by notification in the Official Gazette.

18.2 In accordance with Section 41(4), the Central Government had issued a notification dated 19.6.1992 specifying the types of motor vehicles. The table contains the types of motor vehicles relatable to transport vehicles and non-transport vehicles. Under the heading Non-Transport Vehicles, entry (iv) is “invalid carriage”.

18.3 As per Section 2(18) the expression “invalid carriage” means a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed, and not merely adapted, for the use of a person suffering some physical defect or disability, and used solely by or for such person. The expression “adapted” has not been defined in the statute. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary 10th Edition, the word “adapt” is a verb, which means “make suitable for a new use or purpose”.

18.4 The expression “adapted” has been used in various definition clauses such as in Sections 2(14), 2(18), 2(22), 2(25), 2(26), 2(28), 2(29), 2(33), 2(35), 2(40) and 2(43). Meaning has to be ascribed to such expression keeping in view the context in which it has been used. Though ordinarily the word “adapted” can be considered as past tense of the verb “adapt”, at times such expression “adapted” can be considered as adjectival. Understood in such a sense, the expression can mean “suitable”.

18.5 In the context in which it has been used in Section 2(18) the word “adapted” means suitable. It becomes more clear when the preceding expression refers to “a motor vehicle specially designed and constructed/and not merely adapted”.

18.6 In several decisions, such expression “adapted” has been understood to mean “suitable” or “suited”.

18.7 In AIR 1975 SC 17 (Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State Of Orissa ), it was observed: —

“19. While dealing with the English cases it must not be forgotten that the definition of “motor vehicle” in the Road Traffic Act imports the element of intention into the definition for ascertaining whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle. In Maddox v. Storer Lord Parker, C.J was construing the word “adapted” when used disjunctively with “constructed.” He observed:

“One can get illustration after illustration, ‘on looking at the Act itself, where ‘adapted’, when used disjunctively with ‘constructed’ must mean a physical alteration, and, as it seems to me, other cases where the word ‘adapted’ alone is used and where it must be given the adjectival meaning of being fit and apt for the purpose.”

But where the word “adapted” alone has been used such as in sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1960, he was of the view that it was wholly inapt to mean “altered so as to make fit”. He asked “How do you alter a motor-car so as to make it fit to carry not more than seven passengers”? It is clearly there standing on its own, susceptible only of meaning “fit and apt for the purpose.”

22. As usual references have been made to the Dictionaries but quite often it is not possible to hold a dictionary in one hand and the statute to be interpreted in the other for ascertaining the import and intent of the word or expression used by Legislature. The shade of meaning of a word, its different connotations and collocations which one finds in a dictionary does not relieve us of the responsibility of having to make the ultimate choice of selecting the right meaning. We choose that meaning which is most apt in the context, colour and diction in which the word is used. The use of a dictionary ad lib without an analysis of the entire Act, its purpose and its intent, for ascertaining the meaning in which the Legislature could have used the word or expression may not lead us to the right conclusion. With this caution before us for avoiding any of the aforesaid methods which might lead to a possible incongruity, we will examine the different facets to which our attention has been drawn.

23. The meaning of the word “adapted” in Section 2(18) of the Act is itself indicated in Entry 57 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which confers a power on the State to tax vehicles whether propelled mechanically or not and uses the word “suitable” in relation to its use on the roads. The words “adapted for use” must therefore be construed as “suitable for use”. At any rate, words “adapted for use” cannot be larger in their import by including vehicles which are not “suitable for use” on roads. In this sense, the words “is adapted” for use have the same connotation as “is suitable” or “is fit” for use on the roads.”

(emphasis added)

18.8 Similar meaning was attributed by the Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC 1371 (Central Coal Fields Ltd., v. State Of Orissa and others).

18.9 In (2004) 6 SCC 210 (Government of A.P and another v. Road Rollers Owners Welfare Association and others), the Supreme Court, while considering the question as to whether a road roller is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, observed:

“5. … Undoubtedly, a roadroller is meant for repairing roads. This itself shows that it is adapted for use on roads. A roadroller is not capable of being used off the road. Merely because its purpose is to repair roads does not mean that it is not suitable or not adapted for use on roads…. So long as it is a vehicle, which is mechanically propelled, and is adapted for use on roads, it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

18.10 From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that the expression “adapted” has been used in different provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which carries the meaning of “suitable” or “capable of being used” on the road. It is used as an “adjectival” expression rather than a verb.

19. In the present case, the vehicles in question, even though originally designed and constructed in a particular manner, subsequently have been designed and constructed specially for the use of a person suffering from disability. It may be true that originally the vehicles had been designed, constructed and manufactured in a normal manner. But, subsequently, those have been specially designed and constructed for the use of a person suffering from disability.

20. A reading of the counter of Respondents 1 to 3 gives the impression that according to the respondents an “invalid carriage” is a motor vehicle which is specially designed and constructed by a manufacturer and 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 re-constructed by a mechanic for the use of a person suffering from disability. While considering the question as to whether a vehicle can be registered as an invalid carriage, the authority concerned may have to keep in mind the safety factor or other relevant factors such as emission level. However, there is no warrant for the conclusion that a vehicle originally manufactured cannot be specially re-designed and reconstructed specially for the persons suffering from disability. A manufacturer of a particular type of vehicle may not think of manufacturing invalid carriage on account of economic factor such as lack of demand. In the present case, it has been asserted by the petitioner that manufacture of invalid carriage by Maruri has been stopped. It is not necessary to go into this aspect. Even assuming that invalid carriages are still being manufactured, I do not find there is any restriction that a normal vehicle cannot be redesigned and reconstructed specially for the use of a person suffering from disability so that such altered vehicle can be registered as “invalid carriage”. Similarly there is no prohibition for reregistering a vehicle as “invalid carriage” though it was registered otherwise initially.

21. The petitioner has also emphasised on the fact that the manufacturers have stopped manufacturing vehicles specially designed for the disabled persons obviously because of the economic considerations. Therefore, 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.

22. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 3 that prayer in the writ petition is for issuing a direction to the respondents to issue a driving licence and the letter communicated by the RTO indicating return of the application to the petitioner has not been specifically challenged by filing a writ petition for issuing Certiorarified Mandamus.

22.1 The aforesaid submission, in rny opinion, does not deserve any serious consideration in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Even though there is no specific prayer for quashing such letter, all the relevant facts and circumstances are available on record. In fact, there is no factual aspect required to be decided. Since all the necessary facts are on record, there is no embargo on this Court to mould the relief. A court of law, more particularly a court while dealing with the equitable jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, need not be considered as a chess board or an obstacle course. The technical objections, which merely serve to defeat the objective of rendering substantial justice, should be discouraged, If the technical objection raised by the Government Advocate is to be accepted, the petitioner would be forced to either amend the writ petition or file a fresh writ petition which in the long run will not serve any useful purpose.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: —

(1) The Regional Transport Officer shall consider afresh the application made by the petitioner for noting the modifications or changes made in the vehicles in the Registration Certificate in the light of the observations relating to the present position of law as discussed in the present judgment.

(2) The question of treating the vehicles as “invalid carriage” shall be reconsidered in the light of the observations made.

(3) The Regional Transport Officer shall consider the question of issuance of Learner's licence and subsequently a driving licence in the light of the observations made.

(4) An appropriate decision in respect of the above directions shall be taken by the Regional Transport Officer as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

VCJ/VCS