SANJEEVAIAH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by the Learned Single Judge before whom they came for hearing, these petitions have come up for disposal before this Division Bench.

(2.) THE petitioners in the above Writ Petitions are owners of certain motor vehicles which are being used by them either as stage carriages or as contract carriages. In these petitions they have questioned the validity of notices issued to them by the concerned Regional Transport Officers, calling upon them to bring the seating capacities of the Vehicles inquestion in conformity with the seating capacities prescribed in Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1965 (here in after referred to as the Rules). In some of the petitions, the petitioners also questioned the validity of notices issued by concerned Regional Transport Officers directing them to pay the difference between the tax they would have been liable to pay had the vehicles been constructed to have seating capacity in accordance with Rule 216 and the tax actually paid by them under the provisions of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred the Taxation Act).

(3.) RULE 216 of the Rules was substituted by a new Rule under Notification No. G.S.R. 360 dated 7th October, 1969. In these cases, we are concerned with the new Rule 216. It reads : '216 Limit of Seating Capacity : - (1)Subject to the provisions of Rule 214 regarding the seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver andconductor that a public service vehicle other than a motor cab, may be permitted to carry, shall not exceed the number determined by dividing by 59 K.Gs. the difference in K.Gs. between the registered laden weight less 109 Kilo and the unladen weight of the vehicle. (2) The minimum seating capacity of a public service vehicle shall be directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. In all public service vehicles other than motor cabs the minimum number of seats to be provided shall be as specified in column (2) of the table below : Provided that the operator may increase the capacity consistent with the other rule relating to seating capacity and with the due regard to the type of the chassis on which the body is fitted : - TABLE Wheel base No of seats (minimum seating capacity) 1 2 254 to 293 cm 16294 to 305 cm 20 306 to 343 cm 25 344 to 407 cm 30 408 to 432 cm 35 433 to 496 cm 45497 to 534 cm 50 above 535 cm 55 (3) Nothing in Sub -Rule (2) apply to : (i) Stage carriages proposed to be operated exclusively in town and cities ; and (ii) Stage carriages registered prior to the coming into force of the Mysore Motor Vehicles (V Amendment) Rules, 1969. Provided that when the body of a stage carriage specified in item (ii) is reconstructed, the seats shall be so arranged as to face the front and maximum number of seats to the satisfaction of the registering authority, shall be provided.' The above rule was made by the State Government in exercise of the power conferred on it under Section 70(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1939. The validity of the above rule was questioned by some owners of Motor Vehicles before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 15 -4 -1971 in K.G. Jagannath -v. - State of Mysore, 1971(2) Mys. L.J. 384 held that Rule 216(2) was unconstitutional. Aggrieved by the decision of this Court, the StateGovernment filed an appeal before the Supreme Court. In State of Mysore and another -v. - K.G.Jagannath, : [1973]3SCR770 the appeal filed by the State Government was allowed and Rule 216(2) was held to be valid. The decision of the Supreme Court was pronounced on 27 -3 -1973. The vehicles involved in the above Writ Petitions except one bearing registration number 5695 belonging to the petitioner K. G. Jagannath, were either registered or altered or were assigned new registration marks under Section 29 of the Motor Vehicles Act, during the period between 15 -4 -1971 on which the date this Court pronounced its decision in K.G. Jagannath's case and 27 -3 -1973 on which date the Supreme Court pronounced its decision in the aforesaid appeal. In the cases of those vehicles which were registered in the State of Karnataka or in respect of which alteration of seating capacity was done during the above period, it is not disputed that theconcerned Regional Transport Officers had accorded permission to construct the bodies or to alter the seating capacity of the vehicles under Rules 216 & 231 of the Rules or under Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the case may be. It is stated that even in the case of Vehicle No. 5695 the alteration of seating capacity was done in accordance with the permission of the Regional Transport Officer. After the vehicles were registered or altered in accordance with the permission given by the Regional Transport Officers, the petitioners used the said vehicles either as stage carriages or contract carriages. They paid the taxes due on the vehicles in accordance with the pro -visions of the Taxation Act. After the validity of the Rule was upheld by the Supreme Court, the Regional Transport Officers issued notices to the petitioners asking them to increase the seating capacities of the vehicles and to bring them in conformity with the amended Rule 216 and in some cases they called upon the petitioners to pay the difference between the tax which they would have been liable to pay had the vehicles been constructed to have seating capacity in accordance with Rule 216 and the actual tax paid by them. Aggrieved by the above demands, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions.