C.Ratnaji Rao v. 'I . The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the third Respondent to transfer the vehicle lnnova Crysta bearing registration No. TS09UC1563 from l\ilaxi Cab to Omini Bus for Private Use (Non- Transport Vehicle). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRANAY SOHINI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.VIGNESWAR REDDY, GP FOR TRANSPORT l-,"-' fhe Court made the following: ORDER I L--=-: 3 SK, J WP No. 16380 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.1638O of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the Letter No.R.No.1563 lD2 lHCl2022 dated 26.O8.2O22 and Memo No.1563/D2/2025 dated 17.O3.2O25 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to convert the vehicle-lnnova Crysta bearing registration No.TSO9UC1563 from Maxi Cab to Omini Bus ior private use (Non transport vehicle).

2. Heard Sri Pralay Sohini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. Vigneswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Transport and perused the material on record.

3. Learned Counsel for thc petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner of vehicle i.e, Innova Crysta bearing registration No.TS09UC 1563, and running the said vehicle under Maxi Cab by paying quarterly charges and cleared a-11 the taxes till date. The petitioner filed application before the respondents to convert the vehicle from Maxi Cab to Omini Bus for private use (Non-transport vehicle) and booked a slot by paying fee of Rs.9O0 /- and got prepared a DD of Rs.2,O0,0OO/- I I SK, J WP No. i6380 of 2025 \ towards charges and taxes payable for conversion. However, the respondents vide impugned letter dated 26.08.2022 has rejected the application of petitioner on the ground that 'there would be huge revenue loss to the Government Ex-chequer in the event the subject vehicle is converted'. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has frled W.P.No.35676 of 2O22 and the sarne was disposed of on 1 1.12.2024 directing the respondents to consider the application of petitioner for conversion of the subject vehicle from Maxi Cab to Omini Bus and pass appropriate orders after considering the documents filed by him and affording opportunity of hearing to him in accordance with law. He further submits that in spitc of the said direction, the respondents have again rejected the application of the petitioner by the impugned Memo No.l563lD2/2O25 dated 77.O3.2O25 assigning the same reasons, which is illegal and arbitrary and requested to direct the respondents to convert the subject vehicle from Maxi Cab to Omini Bus lor private use (Non- tran sport vehicle).

4. Learned Government Pleader for Tralsport has produced written instructions vide letter R.No.TSO9UC1563/D2l2O2S dated 11.06.2025 ol the respondent No.3 and submits that _/ I SK, J WP No.16380 of 2025 pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.35676 of 2022 dated 11.12.2024, the respondent No.3 has considered the application of petitioner and opined that if the conversion is considered, there would be a huge revenue loss to the Government ex-chequer as there is huge variation in collection of quarterly tax from Maxi cab (Transport) and life tax for omnibus for private use (Non-transport), qua-rterly tax is levied for Maxicabs as per G.O.Ms.No.21 Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-l) Department dated 07.05.2022, life tax is levied for omnibus for private use as per Seventh Schedule of the Telangana State Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963 and it may endanger road safety and moreover the vehicle may ply as illicit after conversion and rejected the same and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.35676 of 2022 dated 11.12.2024, the respondent No.3 has considered the application ol the petitioner and issued the memo rejecting the application of petitioner arld stated that once the vehicle u,as registered under transport category, it cannot be converted into non-transport. At the time L*--- 6 SK, J WP No. 1638O of 2025 -\ of arguments, this Court has specifically asked the learned \ Government Pleader lor Transport to show the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as there is bar for conversion of transport vehicle to non-transport vehicle. But, the respondents have lailed to show any provision under the Motor Vehicles Act,

6. Section 41(1) and (4) and Section 52(1) and (2) of the Nilotor Vehicles Act, 1988 are extracted as under; "41. Registration, how to be made. - (1) An apptication by or on behalf ol the ou'ner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particutars and information (2 )(... ) {3}(--.) (4) ln adclition to the other particulars required to be included in the ccrtificate of registralion, it shall also specify the type of the motor vr:hicle, being a type as the Central Government may, having regard to ttle design, construction and use of the motor vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

52. Altetation in motor vehicle.- (1) No ot,ner 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 I!lanufactLlrer: I'rovided that where the owner of a motor vehicle makes modification of tl)c engine, or any part thereof, of a vehicle for facilitating its operation b! differcnt tvpe of fuel or source of energr including battery, \ SK, J WP No. 16380 of 2O25 compressed natural gas, solar power, liquid petroleum gas or any other fuel or source of ener$/, 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 Govemment may prescribe specifications, conditions for approval, retrofitment and other related matters for the alteration o[ motor vehicles and in such cases, the warranty granted by the manufacturer shall not be considered as void for the purposes of such alteration or retofitment.] Provided also that the Central Government may grant exemption for alteration of vehicles in a manner other than specified above, for any specifrc purpose. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (l), any person may, with the subsequent approval of the registering authority, alter or cause to be altered any vehicle owned by him to be converted into an adapted vehicle. Provided that such alteration complies with such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.l

7. In the instant case, the vehicle is Innova Crysta which is norma-l1y used for private pllrpose i.e., non-transport vehicle. The petitioner to eaking out his livelihood, has registered the said vehicle under transport category, but due to his domestic reasons and also the market situation he wants to stop running the vehicle as transport vehicle arrd to convert the said vehicle as non-transport vehicle. Without any rule for prohibition for conversion, now the respondents have rejected the application of -/ I I t- 8 SK, J WP No. 16380 of 2O25 the petitoner on the ground that there is huge loss to the Government exchequer as the petitioner is paying quarterly tax for the vchicle Llnder transport category B. The respondents anticipate that if the vehicle is converted from transport to non-transport, it may endanger road saJety. The said contention is very atrocious and cannot be accepted and on thc presumptions and assumptions they have stated that the vehicle mav olv as illicit after conversion. Merelv basing on the apprehension, the respondents have rejected the application ol petitioncr for conversion of vehicle from transport to non-transport. The said action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution of Indiar. Thc respondents in the impugned orders have relied oi-r G.O.Ms.No.21 Transport, Roads and Buildings (TR-l) Department dated 07.05.2022, but the same is not applicable to the instant case.

9. [n view of the same, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the Letter No.R.No.1563/D2lHC/2022 dated 26.08.2022 and Memo No.I563/D2/2O25 dated 17.03.2025 and the respondents are directed to convert / 9 SK, J WP No. 16380 of 2025 the vehicle of petitioner i.e, Innova Crysta bearing registration No.TS09UC1563 from Maxi Cab to Omini bus (Non-transport) category within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs. ,TRUE COPY' SD/. B. REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR / ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTIC (For His Lordships Kind Perusa SARATH To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Transport Commissioner Khairtabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Central Zone, Khairtabad, o Hyderabad. 4. 11 LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

7. One CC to SRI PRANAY SOHINI, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies W BSR \,r' HIGH COURT DATED:0810712025 ORDER WP.No.16380 of 2025 i{HES o t t ? r JAil 2026 v o PaT6rr * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 1 6l \N Ji\ 1/- :'l.z