Judgment:
ORDER
Raveendran, J.
1. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of Vehicle bearing Registration No. TMN 4788. The said Vehicle was registered as a stage carriage on 16.04.1984 in Tamil Nadu with a seating capacity of 38 + 2. One T. Balakrishnan purchased the said Vehicle and converted it as an Omnibus on 11.06.1991 with the same seating capacity. The Petitioner purchased it from T. Balakrishnan. After the transfer of ownership in favour of Petitioner was duly recorded in the Registration Certificate, the Petitioner brought the Vehicle into the State of Karnataka by way of change of address. On 21.08.1991, Petitioner sought re-classification of Vehicle from Omnibus to Stage Carriage. At that stage the Respondent required the Petitioner to provide the minimum seating capacity as per Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. Hence, Petitioner also sought permission to increase the seating capacity from 38 + 2 to 48 + 2. Respondent granted such permission. The Petitioner also paid tax for the increased seating capacity. The Vehicle was thereafter classified as a Stage Carriage. Three weeks after obtaining reclassification as Stage Carriage by increasing the seating capacity to 48 + 2, the Petitioner gave an application proposing to alter the Vehicle by reducing the seating capacity from 50 to 40. This was considered and rejected by the Respondent by its Order dated 18.09.1991 (Annexure-'A'). Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this Petition for quashing Annexure-'A' and seeking a direction to Respondent to permit the Petitioner to reduce the seating capacity from 48 + 2 to 38 + 2.
2. The Petitioner contends that as the Vehicle was originally registered outside State of Karnataka, a Registering Authority in Karnataka has no jurisdiction to require compliance with Rule 151(2) and the owner can have the same number of seats as the Vehicle originally had, when it was brought into Karnataka. For this purpose, the Petitioner relies on the Decision of the Division Bench of this Court in SANJEEVAIAH v. R.T.O. : ILR1985KAR4088 . The Point for Consideration is whether the Petitioner, having requested for increase in seating capacity of the Vehicle from 38 + 2 to 48 + 2 and on that basis having obtained reclassification of the Vehicle as a Stage Carriage, can thereafter seek reduction in the seating capacity which, if granted, will have the effect of violating Rule 151(2). This requires determination of the following Points:
(a) Whether a Registering Authority can require the owner of a Motor Vehicle brought into Karnataka from outside Karnataka, to comply with Rule 151 (2) and if so, in what circumstances?
(b) At what stage and by which Authority, Rule 151 (2) can be enforced or required to be fulfilled?
3. The relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' in short) and the Rules framed thereunder, may have to be noticed at the outset.
3.1. Chapter IV of the Act deals with registration of Motor Vehicles. Section 40 requires every owner of a Motor Vehicle to cause the Vehicle to be registered with a Registering Authority, in whose jurisdiction, he has the residence or place of business, where the Vehicle is normally kept. Section 41 provides how registration of a Motor Vehicle has to be made. Section 46 provides that, subject to Section 47, a Motor Vehicle registered in accordance with Chapter IV in any State, shall not require to be registered elsewhere in India and a Certificate of Registration issued or in force under the Act in respect of such Vehicle, shall be effective throughout India. Section 47 requires that, if a Motor Vehicle registered in one State is kept in another State for a period exceeding 12 months, the owner shall, apply to the Registering Authority within whose jurisdiction the Vehicle then is, for the assignment of a new registration mark and shall present the Certificate of Registration to that registering authority; and the Registering Authority, after verification, assign the vehicle a registration mark and enter the mark in the Certificate of Registration and arrange for transfer of the registration of the Vehicle from the records of the previous Registering Authority to its own records. Section 48 provides for issue of a No Objection Certificate by the Registering Authority which registered the Vehicle, for either assigning a new registration mark or for entering the particulars of ownership in the Certificate of Registration. Section 49 provides for entering the change of residence or place of business of the registered owner. Section 50 provides for entering of transfer of ownership in the Certificate of Registration. Section 52 provides that no owner shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the Registration Certificate are no longer accurate, unless he has obtained the approval of that Registering Authority to make such alteration.
3.2. Rules 47, 48, 52, 54, 55, 58 and 59 of the Central Rules, 1989, relate to applications for registration of Motor Vehicles, issue of a Registration Certificate, Renewal of Certificate of Registration, assignment of new registration mark, transfer of ownership, issue of No-Objection Certificate and entering of change of residence.
3.3. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions that when a Vehicle registered outside the State is brought into the State, it does not require fresh registration. It is also evident that the seating capacity has no relevance for entering the transfer of ownership or change of address in the. Registration Certificate. Nor do the provisions relating to transfer of ownership or change of address contemplate the Registering Authority requiring the registered owner or the applicant to increase the seating capacity of the Vehicle, as a condition precedent for entering the transfer of ownership or change of address.
3.4. Reference may now be made to Chapter VII of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, ('Rules' for short) dealing with construction, equipment and maintenance of Motor Vehicles. Rule 136 provides that no person shall use or cause or allow to be used in any public place, any motor Vehicle which does not comply with the Rules contained in that Chapter or with any Order thereunder made by the Competent Authority. Rule 151 dealing with limit of seating capacity, is made in exercise of the Rule Making Power of the State Government under Section 111(2(a) of the Act. The said Rule 151 reads as follows :-
'151. Limit of Seating Capacity:-
(1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 146 regarding seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver and conductor or attender that a public service vehicle other than goods carriage, Motor Cab may be permitted to carry, shall not exceed the number determined by dividing by 58 Kilograms the difference in Kilograms between the gross laden weight less 109 Kilograms and the unladen weight of the vehicle.
(2) The minimum seating capacity of a vehicle shall bedirectly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. In publicservice vehicles other than goods carriages and motor cabs, theminimum number of seats including two seats for driver andconductor or attender to be provided, shall be as specified inColumn (2) of the Table below:-
Wheel Base Minimum Seating Capacity254 to 293 cm. 16294 to 305 cm. 20306 to 343 cm. 25344 to 407 cm. 30408 to 432 cm. 35433 to 496 cm. 45497 to 534 cm. 50535 to 541 cm. 55541 to 561 cm. 60Above 561 cm. 65 (3) Nothing in Sub-Rule (2) shall apply to:
(a) Stage Carriage proposed to be operated in towns and cities and within a radius of 25 kms. from the limits of such towns and cities.
(b) Tourist vehicles covered by permits issued under Sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Act.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-rules (1) and (2), the Government may, by notification in the official Gazette exempt any public service vehicles or class of such vehicles used in any specific area from the provisions of the above Sub-rules either generally or for a specified period subject to such conditions as may be specified in that behalf.'
4. Rule 151 (2) prescribing the minimum seating capacity does not apply to private service vehicles or Educational Institution buses. It also does not apply to Tourist Vehicles. It applies to only public service vehicles that is, stage carriages, contract carriages and maxi cabs. Even among stage carriages, it does not apply to 'City Service Vehicles' that is stage carriages proposed to be operated in towns and cities and within a radius of 25 K.M. from the limits of such towns and cities. It does not also apply to any vehicles or class of vehicles which may be exempted by the Government by notification under Rule 151 (3)(c). In the context of registering the transfer of ownership under Section 50 or entering or registering change of address of the registered owner under Section 49 in the Certificate of Registration, Rule 151 (2) has no relevance. It applies to stage carriages only if the vehicle is proposed to be used as a stage carriage beyond 25 K.M. from Town/City limits. Rule 151(2) corresponds to Rule 216(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1963, ('Old Rules' for short). The validity of Rule 216 (2) of the old Rules prescribing minimum seating capacity was upheld by the Supreme Court in STATE OF MYSORE AND ANR. v. K.G. JAGANNATH : [1973]3SCR770 . In the context of the restrictions relating to grant of stage carriage permits prevailing under the 1939 Act a provision for minimum number of seats in a stage carriage vehicle was necessary in the interest of travelling public. But having regard to the liberalised procedure for grant of stage carriage permits under the 1988 Act, how far a provision for minimum seats is necessary or relevant, does not appear to have been considered by any Court. That question does not arise for consideration in this case. The Legislature or the Rule Making Authority may have to address itself the question whether the minimum number of seats prescribed under Rule 151(2) should be further reduced, to increase passenger comfort. Having regard to the availability of more number of vehicles on a given route under the liberalised scheme for grant of permits, passenger comfort should be given more importance. Better seats and leg room necessarily mean less number of seats. Insistence of a minimum number of seats restricts the comfort and convenience of passengers, particularly in long journey routes. Be that as it may.
5.1) In Sanjeevaiah v. R.T.O., the notices issued by R.T.Os requiring the registered owners of Motor Vehicles originally registered outside Karnataka, to alter the seating capacity to bring them in conformity with Rule 216(2) of the Old Rules were under challenge. A Division Bench of this Court held:-
8. The last question which arises for consideration in these cases relates to the power of the Regional Transport Officers to call upon the owners of the Motor Vehicles, which have been registered outside the State of Karnataka and whose bodies are either constructed or altered in accordance with the permission accorded by the concerned Transport Authorities outside the State of Karnataka, to alter their seating capacities and to bring them in conformity with the seating capacities prescribed under Rule 216(2), after those vehicles are brought into the State of Karnataka and assigned new registration marks under Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
9. Section 28 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that subject to the provisions of Section 29, a motor vehicle registered in accordance with Chapter III of Motor Vehicles Act in any State, shall not be required to be registered elsewhere in India and that a Certificate of Registration issued or in force under the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of such vehicle, shall be effective throughout India. Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act only authorises the assignment of a new registration mark to a vehicle which is already registered outside the State, if the vehicle is kept in the State for a period exceeding 12 months. Section 29 does not envisage a fresh registration of the vehicle, and the authority which is empowered to assign a fresh registration mark, under Section 29, is not authorised to require the owner of the vehicle to alter its seating capacity so as to bring it in conformity with any Rule that may be in force in the State in which fresh registration mark is sought before assigning such new registration mark. In fact, the Rules also do not confer any such power on the Regional Transport Officers who are authorised to assign new registration marks under Section 29.'
In the light of the said discussion the Division Bench held as follows:-
'In the cases of those vehicles which were originally registered outside the State of Karnataka and are brought into the State of Karnataka for the purpose of using them as either stage carriages or contract carriages, we quash the notices issued by the RTO asking the petitioners to alter the seating capacities of the vehicles and to bring them in conformity with the provisions of Rule 216 of the Rules.'
This Court however made it clear that it would be open to the RTO to insist on compliance with Rule 216 when the owners make applications for reconstruction of the Motor Vehicles in question. This is because Rule 216 which was substituted by Notification dated 07.10.1969 exempted stage carriages registered prior to the coming into force of Karnataka Motor Vehicles (V Amendment) Rules, 1969, from the operation of Rule 216(2).
6. In N. VASANTH KUMAR v. R.T.O. KOLAR : AIR1988Kant110 , this Court considered the question whether the Registering Authority can require the registered owner to comply with Rule 216(2) of the Old Rules, as a condition precedent for entering the change of address of the owner. This Court held:-
'There is nothing in Section 30 of the Act (Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, corresponding to Section 49 of the 1988 Act) which requires the registering authority concerned therein to compel the owner of the vehicle intimating the change of address, to get his vehicle altered so as to conform to Rule 216 of the Rules providing for minimum number of seats in a vehicle as a condition precedent for obtaining entry regarding change of his address in the Certificate of Registration.'
7. As there is no material difference between the provisions of Sections 28, 29 and 30 of the 1939 Act and Rules 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, considered in the Cases of Sanjeevaiah and Vasantha Kumar, and the corresponding Sections 46, 47 and 49 of the 1988 Act and Rule 151 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the said Decisions will apply with equal force to cases under the 1988 Act also. There is yet another reason for holding that Registering Authority cannot require compliance of Rule 151 (2) while entering the transfer of ownership or change of address in the Registration Certificate, as at that stage, the Registering Authority will not know whether the stage carriage is proposed to be operated as a City Service Vehicle exempted under Rule 151 (3) (a) or proposed to be operated beyond 25 K.M. from the City/Town limits. Hence application of Rule 151 (2) would depend on the proposed use. Having regard to Sections 46, 47, 49 and 50 of the 1988 Act, the Registering Authority cannot require compliance with Rule 151(2) at the time of either entering the transfer of ownership or the change of address in the Certificate of Registration. Nor can the Registering Authority call upon the registered owner to increase the number of seats in accordance with Rule 151(2) after the transfer of ownership or change of residence of a registered owner has already been entered in the Certificate of Registration.
8. Let me now refer to certain other Decisions bearing on the matter.
8.1. In NOORULLA SHERIFF v. REGISTERING AUTHORITY W.P.No. 1815of 1985 DD 12.2.1985, Vehicle which was originally registered in the State of Tamil Nadu on 14.07.1988 with a seating capacity of 48 + 2 was brought to the State of Karnataka on 22.07.1982. The said Vehicle was re-registered with a Karnataka Registration number with effect from 06.08.1982 with the same seating capacity. Thereafter the said Vehicle was transferred to the name of the petitioner therein on 27.10.1984, who obtained a No-Objection Certificate from the R.T.O., Bangalore and removed the Vehicle to Tamil Nadu on 23.11.1984. The R.T.O., Dharmapuri, noted the change of address of the Petitioner therein and on the same day, reduced the seating capacity from 48 + 2 to 43 + 2. On 24.11.1984, the R.T.O., Dharmapuri, issued a No-Objection Certificate in regard to the vehicle in question and the petitioner therein again brought the vehicle back to the State of Karnataka and filed an application on 07.12.1984 requesting the noting of change of address. The Registering Authority directed the change of address to be recorded in the Registration Certificate. He also directed the Registered owner to bring the vehicle in conformity with Rule 216 of the 1963 Rules. That direction was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The Writ Petition filed by Noorulla Sheriff was rejected by this Court on the following reasoning:
'It is contended by Sri Srirangaiah, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Rule 216 is not applicable to the vehicle which is migrated from the other State as held by this Court in SANJEEVAIAH v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (1975 (2) KLJ Page 42 S.N. Item No. 84). It is not possible to hold that the said decision applies to the facts of the present case. It is already pointed out that the vehicle was having the seating capacity of 48 + 2 as per Rule 216 of the Rules, from 22.07.1982 to 31.10.1984 during which period it was in this State and the change or address was also entered in the R.C. Book. It is only for a period of one week or so, it has been taken to Tamil Nadu only for the purpose of reducing the seating capacity and again it has been brought back to Karnataka. This only shows that the petitioner has tried to defeat the provision of law. The case of this type is not covered by the aforesaid decision. To hold otherwise is to encourage acts which only intend to defeat Rule 216 of the Rules. If the contention of the Petitioner is accepted, it will be very convenient to every motor vehicle operator to take the vehicle to some other State for a period of one or two weeks and bring back the vehicle after reducing the seating capacity, thereby adversely affecting the legitimate revenue of the State arid thereby defeating Rule 216 of the Rules. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the impugned orders are vitiated.'
8.2. In N. MUDDAPPA v. R.T.O. BANGALORE W.A. No. 1878 of 1987 DD 6.8.1990, the registered owner applied to the Registering Authority for transfer of ownership and alteration of the vehicle from Omnibus to Stage Carriage as the said Vehicle was intended to be converted under a Stage Carriage permit granted to him. In response, the Registering Authority issued an endorsement requiring the registered owner to comply with Rule 216(2) increasing the seating capacity from 40 + 2 to 48 + 2. That was challenged in W.P.No. 13648/1987. A Learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the Writ Petition. In a Writ Appeal by the owner, the Division Bench held that the Decision in Sanjeevaiah's case was inapplicable as the case before them was not a case of the registering authority requiring the owner to alter the seating capacity in regard to a stage carriage, but a case where the owner required re-classification from omnibus to stage carriage and once the vehicle is registered as stage carriage, such vehicle should conform to Rule 216(2).
9. The question then is, if the Registering Authority cannot require compliance with Rule 151(2), who can require compliance with the said Rule A stage carriage is a transport vehicle. Under Section 66, no owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of a vehicle as a stage carriage except in accordance with the conditions of the permit granted. Section 70 provides how an application for a stage carriage permit has to be made. An application for a permit in respect of a stage carriage shall contain among other particulars, the type and seating capacity of the vehicle. Section 72 deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Section 72(2) provides that the RTA, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description and may also attach to the permit, anyone or more of the conditions mentioned therein. Condition No. (x) that can be so attached to the permit is 'that vehicles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specification shall be used.' Clause (xxiv) of Section 72(2) provides that any other condition may be prescribed. Rule 151(2) deals with the minimum seating capacity of stage carriages and is relevant to the grant of a permit for a stage carriage.
10. Section 83 provides that the holder of a permit may, with the permission of the Authority by which the permission was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit, by any other vehicle of the same nature. While granting such permission, the Authority is bound to ensure that Rule 151(2) is complied with. While replacing an existing vehicle covered by a permit by a new vehicle, a permit holder cannot reduce the seats under the guise of replacing the vehicle.
11. Thus, having regard to Sections 70, 72 and 83, whenever a stage carriage permit is granted or whenever permission is granted for replacing the vehicle covered by a permit, it is permissible for the Transport Authority granting the permit or granting permission for replacement to require that the vehicle to be used shall have the minimum number of seats provided in Rule 151(2). In fact, having regard to the mandatory requirements of Rules 136 and 151 (2), the Transport Authority is duty bound to require compliance with Rule 151(2). To hold otherwise would render Rule 151(2) nugatory. It was so held by this Court in K.M. KARIBASAPPA v. REGISTERING AUTHORITY W.P.No. 1459 of 1994 etc. DD 23.1.1995.
12. At this stage it is also relevant to refer to two other Decisions. In JAVARE GOWDA v. R.T.O. : ILR1991KAR36 , this Court held that a request for alteration by way of reduction in seating capacity, if it was not barred under the Act or the Rules, could not be rejected on the ground that it will reduce the tax liability and thereby affect the revenue. In VISWARADHYA v. R.T.O., TUMKUR W.P.No. 19665 of 1990 DD 3.12.1990, this Court held that an application for reduction in seating capacity cannot be rejected, if the request was in accordance with the Act and the Rules.
13. The following principles emerge from the Decisions referred and the discussion above:-
(a) Rule 151(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules prescribing the minimum seating capacity with reference to wheel base, is applicable to all stage carriages, contract carriages and maxi cabs, except those exempted under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 151 (3).
(b) In regard to vehicles registered in Karnataka, either the Registering Authority or the Transport Authority can require compliance with Rule 151 (2).
(c) In regard to vehicles which were originally registered outside the State of Karnataka and are brought into the State of Karnataka, for the purpose of using them as either stage carriages or contract carriages, the Registering Authority in Karnataka cannot require compliance with Rule 151(2) either before or after the registration of the transfer of ownership or registering the change of address. But a Transport Authority can require compliance with Rule 151 (2) either at the time of granting a stage carriage permit, or at the time of production of a vehicle for obtaining a permit or at the time of granting permission to replace a vehicle covered by a stage carriage permit.
(d) Even in regard to vehicles which were originally registered outside the State of Karnataka and brought into Karnataka, either the Registering Authority or the Transport Authority can require compliance with Rule 151(2) - (i) when applications for reconstruction of bodies are made, (ii) when the owner applies for recategorisation of a vehicle as a stage carriage, contract carriage or maxi cab (which was not so categorised when brought into Karnataka).
(e) The principle in Sanjeevaiah's case will not apply to vehicles which are registered in Karnataka and which are taken out of Karnataka to defeat the provisions of law or Rule 151(2) and thereafter brought back into Karnataka (as pointed out in Noorulla Sheriff's case).
(f) If an application for reduction in the seating capacity of a vehicle is made and the reduction sought does not contravene Rule 151(2) or any other provision of the Act or Rules, such application cannot be rejected on the ground that it will affect the revenue or on the ground that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules for such reduction.
14. Let me examine the facts of this case in the light of the above principles. The vehicle in question was not a stage carriage, when brought into the State. Petitioner voluntarily increased the seating capacity of the vehicle from 38 + 2 to 48 + 2, to obtain reclassification from omnibus to stage carriage. Thereafter he requested for reduction in seating capacity. The request if granted, would amount to violation of Rule 151(2). The Decision in Sanjeevaiah's case will not apply to this case as the vehicle was not brought as a stage carriage, from outside Karnataka. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any error and is not open to challenge. The Petition is accordingly rejected.