JUDGMENT : MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J. 1. The petitioner purchased a Mahindra Jeep, 2007 model, bearing registration No. KL-01/AQ-5563, in an auction conducted on 08.11.2023 by Metal Scrap Trade Corporation Limited (MSTC) for the sale of confiscated and condemned vehicles as per the auction advertisement dated 11.01.2023. The petitioner was confirmed as the highest bidder and remitted the sale consideration to the account of the 1 st respondent, whereupon MSTC issued Ext.P2 delivery order dated 01.12.2023. 2. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 proceedings dated 01.12.2023 directing the Assistant Wildlife Warden, Tholpetty, to hand over possession of the vehicle to the petitioner. The vehicle had a valid registration from 28.04.2007 to 27.04.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to apply before the 2 nd respondent for renewal of the certificate of registration, the vehicle having completed fifteen years of age, and also sought transfer of ownership in his name in accordance with Rule 59 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989. However, the petitioner was unable to remit the required fee online as access was denied on account of Ext.P5 letter dated 10.08.2023 issued by the office of the Transport Commissioner pursuant to Ext.P6 notification dated 16.01.2023 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways which amended the CMV Rules incorporating Rule 52A, directing all Heads of Departments not to permit Government vehicles which have completed fifteen years of age to be used on public roads and the registration certificate of Government vehicle shall expire after the lapse of 15 years and the disposal of such vehicles is required to be ensured through registered vehicles scraping facility set up in accordance with Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2021. 2.1. The petitioner contends that the said notifications do not apply to the vehicle purchased by him, as the vehicle was not intended to be scrapped but was sold through e-auction. It is submitted that Ext.P1 auction notification describes the vehicle as a confiscated vehicle and does not indicate that the vehicle was to be sold as scrap. The petitioner further relies on instances where vehicles older than fifteen years were permitted renewal of registration. In this regard, reference is made to a vehicle bearing registration No. KLK-8939, whose registration was renewed by the Assistant Registering Authority, Koduvally, on 03.12.2019. The petitioner further relies on instances where vehicles older than fifteen years were permitted renewal of registration. In this regard, reference is made to a vehicle bearing registration No. KLK-8939, whose registration was renewed by the Assistant Registering Authority, Koduvally, on 03.12.2019. Similarly, another light motor vehicle manufactured in the year 1997 bearing registration No. KL-11-G-4660 had its registration renewed for the period from 03.01.2018 to 02.01.2023 by the Regional Transport Authority, Kozhikode. According to the petitioner, these instances demonstrate that there is no absolute prohibition against renewal of registration of light motor vehicles even after completion of fifteen years. The petitioner, therefore, contends that believing there would be no impediment in the transfer of ownership and renewal of registration, he purchased the vehicle at auction, but the 2 nd respondent is now refusing to effect the transfer or renew the registration. 2.2. The petitioner accordingly seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept the application and fee for transfer of the certificate of registration and to renew the registration of the vehicle, and further seeks a declaration that Exts.P5 and P6 are inapplicable to the vehicle purchased by him through e-auction. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the Deputy Forest Conservator and Wildlife Warden, Wayanad Wildlife Sub Division, it is stated that, as per Ext.R1(a) Government Order, permission was obtained to utilise the services of MSTC Limited for auctioning and selling vehicles which were scrapped, condemned, and confiscated by the Kerala Forest Department. It is submitted that the vehicle bearing registration No. KL-01-AQ-5563, a Mahindra Jeep used by the Wayanad Elephant Squad and RRT Range, whose registration expired on 27.04.2022, was condemned by the Department as per order No. W(3)-6070/2022 dated 05.12.2022 issued by the Wildlife Warden, Wayanad. It is further stated that the petitioner participated in the auction and emerged as the successful bidder, and that the Ext.R1(c) condemned order dated 5.12.2022 relating to the vehicle was also submitted. 3.1. It is further submitted that in the Ext.R1(b) e-auction advertisement, it is stated that the vehicle could be inspected during office hours with the permission of the concerned officer, that bidders could verify the condition of the vehicle before participating in the auction, and that no complaints regarding the condition of the vehicle would be entertained thereafter. 3.1. It is further submitted that in the Ext.R1(b) e-auction advertisement, it is stated that the vehicle could be inspected during office hours with the permission of the concerned officer, that bidders could verify the condition of the vehicle before participating in the auction, and that no complaints regarding the condition of the vehicle would be entertained thereafter. In Ext.R1(e) letter dated 16.10.2023 addressed to MSTC Limited, the vehicle is specifically described as a condemned vehicle at serial No.18. 3.2. The 1st respondent further relies on Ext.R1(f), a handwritten receipt executed on a Rs.200/- stamp paper by the authorised representative of the petitioner, wherein it is acknowledged that the vehicle is a condemned vehicle and that the petitioner had inspected the vehicle prior to the auction and participated in the auction with full knowledge of its condition. Reference is also made to Ext.R1(g) order dated 01.12.2023 issued by the Wildlife Warden, Wayanad, wherein the vehicle is again described as condemned. It is therefore contended that a person participating in an auction is expected to understand the contents of the notification and the relevant orders before participating in the auction. 4. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner submits that Ext. R1(a) order dated 15.12.2014, relied on by the respondents, relates only to vehicles that are confiscated or seized. It is further stated that the petitioner was not aware that the vehicle had been condemned by the Department as per the Ext.R1(a) order. According to the petitioner, in Ext.R1(b) e-auction advertisement dated 11.01.2023 it was mentioned that the vehicles listed therein were involved in various forest cases under the Wayanad Wildlife Division and were confiscated by the Government under Section 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, and the vehicle in question was included as Item No.5. Ext.R1(b) is the initial e-auction advertisement fixing the auction on 08.02.2023, which further provided that if the auction was not successful on that date, re- auction could be conducted on subsequent dates from February to December of the same year. According to the petitioner, since the vehicle could not be auctioned in the earlier attempts, a re- auction was eventually conducted on 08.11.2023 as per Ext.P1. In Ext.P1, the vehicle was described only as a confiscated vehicle. The petitioner contends that he was not furnished with the earlier materials, including Ext.R1(b), and was unaware of the earlier auction attempts and the details mentioned therein. In Ext.P1, the vehicle was described only as a confiscated vehicle. The petitioner contends that he was not furnished with the earlier materials, including Ext.R1(b), and was unaware of the earlier auction attempts and the details mentioned therein. In Ext.P2, the delivery order also described the vehicle as a confiscated vehicle. 4.1. The petitioner contends that Ext.R1(f) handwritten receipt was executed only on the date of delivery, i.e., 11.12.2023, and it was only in that document that the vehicle was described as condemned. The petitioner further submits that the RC book of the vehicle was handed over along with the said document, which, according to him, indicates that the vehicle was not intended to be treated as scrap, as there would be no necessity to hand over the RC book if the vehicle had been sold as a condemned vehicle. The petitioner relied on Exts.P9 to P21 to contend that, in several instances, vehicles which had completed fifteen years were nevertheless transferred in favour of successful bidders pursuant to auction by Government authorities, and their registration was subsequently renewed for further periods, thereby indicating a consistent practice permitting such renewal even beyond the fifteen-year threshold. 5. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, Sub-Regional Transport Officer, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 12.08.2025, it is submitted that though the 2 nd respondent is not competent to offer remarks regarding the services rendered by registering authorities, certain factual details were verified with reference to the Parivahan portal regarding renewal of registration after completion of fifteen years. It is stated that vehicle No. KL-58-B-9461, a motor car purchased on 02.07.2009 and registered on 08.07.2009 at the Sub- Regional Transport Office, Thalassery, had registration validity up to 07.07.2024, and that renewal of registration was issued on 05.07.2024, before completion of fifteen years from the date of registration. As regards vehicle No. KLK-8939, it is stated that the said motor car was purchased and registered on 12.06.1984, the owner, who is a private individual, owned the vehicle in his individual capacity, and is entitled to renew the registration on expiry of the first fifteen years and thereafter for further periods of five years each. As regards vehicle No. KLK-8939, it is stated that the said motor car was purchased and registered on 12.06.1984, the owner, who is a private individual, owned the vehicle in his individual capacity, and is entitled to renew the registration on expiry of the first fifteen years and thereafter for further periods of five years each. According to the 2 nd respondent, the restriction against renewal of registration beyond fifteen years applies only to vehicles owned by Government authorities covered by Notification GSR 29(E) dated 16.01.2023 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways and not to vehicles owned by private individuals. 5.1. It is further stated that vehicle No. KL-01-AX-4914, a Mahindra jeep initially registered on 18.02.2010 in the name of the Director, LBS Centre for Science and Technology, was sold to Sri.Lithas P.M. on 11.01.2025 before the completion of fifteen years, and thereafter, the renewal of registration was granted on 24.01.2025 on the application of the said individual owner. Since the vehicle had ceased to be owned by an authority covered by the aforesaid notification, renewal of registration was permitted. However, with respect to vehicle No. KL-11-AQ-5563, it is stated that the vehicle, being under the control of the Government of Kerala, falls within the purview of Notification GSR 29(E) dated 16.01.2023. Since the registration of the said vehicle expired on 27.04.2022, the Parivahan portal does not permit renewal of registration, and therefore, the 2 nd respondent is unable to render the service sought by the petitioner. It is accordingly stated that the writ petition is devoid of merit. 6. A further statement was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, the Transport Commissioner, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 13.08.2025. It is stated that vehicle No. KL-11-G-4660 is a Mahindra motor car first registered on 03.01.1998 and presently owned by Sri. Sangeeth V. As regards vehicle No. KL-01-AY-7339, it is stated that the vehicle, initially registered on 19.07.2010 in the name of the Secretary, Attappadi Co-operative Farming Society, was auctioned on 02.07.2025 to Mr Shine Mathew before the completion of fifteen years from the date of initial registration. Thereafter, on submission of the required documents and upon inspection of the vehicle, the ownership was transferred and the registration renewed. 6.1. Thereafter, on submission of the required documents and upon inspection of the vehicle, the ownership was transferred and the registration renewed. 6.1. It is stated that renewal of registration of vehicles owned by private individuals is permissible under Rule 52 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 and that the prohibition contemplated under Rule 52A applies only to vehicles owned by Government authorities and not to those owned by individuals. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Government of Kerala issued Ext.P22 notification dated 21.01.2026, bearing G.O. (P) No.3/2026/TRANS and SRO No.68/2026 dated 20.01.2026, amending the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 by inserting Rule 98A, which was produced by the petitioner as an additional document. It is stated therein that as per the amended rule, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 52A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989, the certificate of registration in respect of motor vehicles owned and controlled by the State Government shall be renewed for a period of five years after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of initial registration or up to the age of twenty years from the date of initial registration, whichever is earlier. According to the petitioner, in view of the said amendment, the registration of the vehicle in question is liable to be extended from the date of initial registration on 28.04.2007 up to 27.04.2027 as reflected in Ext.P4. It is further contended that upon transfer of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, the vehicle would cease to be a Government vehicle and would become a private vehicle, and therefore, there would be no further restriction in renewing the registration beyond the year 2027 in accordance with law. It is accordingly contended that in view of the amendment brought into force, the registration of the vehicle as per Ext.P4 is liable to be renewed up to 27.04.2027. 8. An additional statement was thereafter filed by the 3rd respondent pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on 11.02.2026. In the said statement, it is contended that the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified by Ext.P22 came into force with effect from 20.01.2026 and do not have any retrospective operation. According to the 3 rd respondent, the notification does not contemplate or enable validating or reviving certificates of registration that had already expired prior to the said date. In the said statement, it is contended that the Kerala Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Rules, 2026, notified by Ext.P22 came into force with effect from 20.01.2026 and do not have any retrospective operation. According to the 3 rd respondent, the notification does not contemplate or enable validating or reviving certificates of registration that had already expired prior to the said date. It is therefore contended that the amendment cannot affect auctions conducted prior to 20.01.2026 in respect of Government vehicles that had already completed fifteen years of age at the time of auction. It is further contended that the vehicle in question was condemned and sold as scrap through MSTC (Metal Scrap Trading Corporation of India Limited) strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure for disposal of condemned Government vehicles. Once a vehicle is condemned and sold as scrap through MSTC, it ceases to be a vehicle capable of use or registration under the Motor Vehicles Act. Consequently, the purchaser of metal scrap from a condemned vehicle cannot claim any right to re-registration or revival of the certificate of registration. The 3 rd respondent, therefore, contends that the reliance placed by the petitioner on G.O.(P) No.3/2026/TRANS dated 20.01.2026 is misconceived, since the vehicle had already been sold as scrap prior to the issuance of the said Government Order and therefore, the amendment has no relevance or applicability to the vehicle involved in the present case. 9. Heard the learned Senior counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani, instructed by Sri. Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader. 10. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner, who purchased the Government vehicle at auction after completion of 15 years, is entitled to seek transfer of ownership and renewal of the certificate of registration of the vehicle as under Rule 52A of the CMV Rules. This Court had occasion to consider similar issues in earlier decisions in W.P.(C) No.13262 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No.42218 of 2025. In W.P.(C) No.13262 of 2025, this Court held that where a Government vehicle had already completed fifteen years, was condemned and thereafter sold through auction only as scrap, re-registration could not be permitted. This Court had occasion to consider similar issues in earlier decisions in W.P.(C) No.13262 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No.42218 of 2025. In W.P.(C) No.13262 of 2025, this Court held that where a Government vehicle had already completed fifteen years, was condemned and thereafter sold through auction only as scrap, re-registration could not be permitted. It was further held that the State and its instrumentalities are under a constitutional obligation to ensure fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness in such transactions, and that all statutory bars, restrictions and limitations affecting re-registration or lawful use of the vehicle must be expressly disclosed as part of the conditions stipulated in the auction notification itself, failing which such non-disclosure would amount to suppression of material facts and a breach of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. 11. In W.P.(C) No.42218 of 2025, on the other hand, the auction and the application for transfer of ownership were both made while the certificate of registration of the vehicle was still valid. The delay in effecting the transfer occurred only due to administrative lapses on the part of the authorities. It was held that the petitioner, having acquired title and applied for transfer within the period of validity of the registration, cannot be denied transfer on account of such delay, and that the bar under Rule 52A of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989, is inapplicable once the vehicle ceases to be a Government vehicle. 12. From the materials placed on record in this case, it is evident that the vehicle in question was initially registered on 28.04.2007, and the certificate of registration was valid only up to 27.04.2022. The auction in which the petitioner participated was conducted on 08.11.2023. Thus, on the date of the auction itself, the vehicle had already completed fifteen years from the date of its initial registration, and the certificate of registration had already expired. Another crucial aspect that emerges from the records is that the vehicle had been condemned by the department prior to the auction, as seen from Ext. R1(b) e-auction advertisement, Ext. R1(c) condemned order dated 05.12.2022, Ext.R1(e) communication dated 16.10.2023 addressed to MSTC, Ext. R1(g) proceedings of the Wildlife Warden, and Ext.R1(f) undertaking executed by the authorised representative of the petitioner. 13. Ext. R1(b) e-auction advertisement, Ext. R1(c) condemned order dated 05.12.2022, Ext.R1(e) communication dated 16.10.2023 addressed to MSTC, Ext. R1(g) proceedings of the Wildlife Warden, and Ext.R1(f) undertaking executed by the authorised representative of the petitioner. 13. Ext. R1(b) e-auction advertisement clearly states that the vehicles listed therein could be inspected during office hours with the permission of the concerned officer and that the quality and condition of the vehicles could be verified by the intending bidders prior to participating in the auction. It was also specifically stated that no complaint regarding the condition of the vehicle would be entertained after the auction. 14. The petitioner, therefore, had sufficient opportunity to inspect the vehicle prior to participating in the auction and participated in the auction after acknowledging that the vehicle was a condemned vehicle. Once the petitioner has participated in the auction with full knowledge of the condition of the vehicle and after executing the undertaking to that effect, the principle of caveat emptor would clearly apply in such circumstances. 15. It is also relevant to note that the vehicle had already completed fifteen years from the date of initial registration and its certificate of registration had expired on 27.04.2022, much prior to the date of auction. The vehicle continued to remain a Government vehicle until its disposal through the auction process. Therefore, the restriction contained in the notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways prohibiting renewal of registration of Government vehicles after completion of fifteen years would squarely apply to the vehicle in question. 16. The instances relied on by the petitioner to contend that renewal of registration was permitted even after completion of 15 years, in Ext. P9 to P21 are therefore distinguishable, since in all such cases the vehicles were either transferred before completion of fifteen years or were owned by private individuals to whom the restriction under Rule 52A was inapplicable, and hence do not advance the petitioner’s claim. 17. The petitioner, however, places reliance on Ext.P22 notification dated 20.01.2026 by which Rule 98A was inserted in the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989, permitting renewal of registration of vehicles owned and controlled by the State Government for a period of five years after the expiry of fifteen years from the date of initial registration or up to the age of twenty years from the date of initial registration, whichever is earlier. The petitioner contends that the said notification is declaratory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation. 18. The question as to whether a statutory provision operates prospectively or retrospectively is well settled. The normal rule is that a statute is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. The principles governing this aspect have been explained by the Supreme Court in Sukhram Singh and Others v. Harbheji , MANU/SC/0402/1969 , wherein it was held that although the presumption is against retrospectivity, in certain circumstances a statute may operate retrospectively if such intention is clearly manifested from the language of the statute or the context in which it is enacted. The petitioner contends that Ext.P22 is declaratory in nature. A declaratory statute, as explained by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay and Others v. Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1997) 5 SCC 482 , is one that merely declares the meaning of an existing law or removes doubts regarding the interpretation of a provision and therefore is often treated as retrospective. 19. However, a reading of Ext. P22 notification does not indicate that the amendment was introduced for the purpose of clarifying any ambiguity in the existing law. On the contrary, the amendment introduces a new enabling provision permitting renewal of registration of certain Government vehicles beyond fifteen years up to twenty years, subject to the conditions specified therein and therefore, the contention that the amendment is declaratory in nature cannot be accepted. That, however, does not conclude the matter. The further question that arises is whether the notification operates prospectively or retrospectively. In determining this question, the intention underlying the amendment has to be gathered from the language of the rule as well as the context in which it was introduced. Section 41(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a certificate of registration shall be valid for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue and shall thereafter be renewable in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 41(8) provides that renewal has to be made within the said period, i.e. within 15 years. Whereas, the provisos introduced through Ext. P22 contemplate renewal of registration of Government vehicles even after the expiry of fifteen years but before the lapse of twenty years from the date of initial registration. Section 41(8) provides that renewal has to be made within the said period, i.e. within 15 years. Whereas, the provisos introduced through Ext. P22 contemplate renewal of registration of Government vehicles even after the expiry of fifteen years but before the lapse of twenty years from the date of initial registration. The explanatory note appended to the notification also indicates that the amendment was introduced considering that many Government vehicles continue to remain roadworthy even after completion of fifteen years and therefore may be permitted to continue in use subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions. When the language of the rule, the statutory scheme under Section 41(7) and (8), and the object disclosed in the Explanatory Note are read together, it becomes evident that the amendment is intended to operate upon vehicles which had already completed the fifteen-year threshold but not completed twenty years and therefore, though not expressly stated, the notification is retrospective in effect. 20. However, the provisos contained in the notification clearly stipulate that such extension of registration can be granted only to vehicles which possess a valid pollution certificate and which pass the prescribed fitness test, and that vehicles which fail the fitness test shall be scrapped through the Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facility or disposed of through MSTC in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. 21. In the present case, the materials on record clearly establish that the vehicle in question had already been condemned by the department and subsequently disposed of through MSTC after following the prescribed procedure. The very fact of condemnation signifies that the vehicle was found unfit for further use by the department and, therefore, cannot be regarded as a roadworthy vehicle capable of passing the statutory fitness test. Once a vehicle is condemned and disposed of through the scrap disposal mechanism, it ceases to retain the legal character of a motor vehicle capable of being restored to the register of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the relief is declined to the petitioner for the reasons stated above, it is declared that the amendment introduced through Ext.P22 operates retrospectively. The said amendment enables renewal of registration of government vehicles that are completed 15 years, but not 20 years, subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including certification of road-worthiness to the satisfaction of the competent transport authorities. The said amendment enables renewal of registration of government vehicles that are completed 15 years, but not 20 years, subject to the fulfilment of the prescribed conditions, including certification of road-worthiness to the satisfaction of the competent transport authorities. The writ petition is disposed of as above.