K GANGADHAR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case had applied for registration of his tata Sumo vehicle as a motor-cab. He has clarified that he desires to run it as a Luxury Taxi and since there are certain limitations with regard to the seating capacity of a motor-cab, that he had confined the seating of the vehicle to 5 passengers + driver. He applied to the respondent for registration as a motor-cab and on the respondent having refused to grant the registration, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present petition.

(2.) MR. Gupta, learned Advocate who represents the petitioner submits that in the first instance, the vehicle in question is one of the common ones manufactured in this country and he states that such vehicles have been regularly registered by the different authorities in this very State as motor-cabs and that a large number of such vehicles are run as motor-cabs. He submits that in this background, the action of the respondent is mala fide in so far as there is no ground on which the petitioner could have been singled out for such hostile discrimination. Secondly, he points out that having regard to the fact that the motor-cab is required to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, that the petitioner has confined the seating capacity to only five passengers and the driver which is well within the limit and he submits that in this background, he is entitled to a direction to the respondent to register the vehicle as a motor-cab.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate on instructions has submitted that the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears in Section 2 (25) of the Act clearly lays down certain limitations with regard to the vehicles that can be registered as a motor-cab. He points out to the Court that under the definition of motor-cab, it has got to be a vehicle which has a seating capacity of not more than six passengers excluding the driver. What he points out is that as far as the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, that the Automotive Research Institute of the Government of India has evaluated the carrying capacity of this vehicle and has certified that it is built to carry 9+1 persons. He has produced before me a circular to this effect which has been issued to the various authorities. His contention is that having regard to the limitations that are prescribed by the law, that the respondent was fully justified in having refused the registration as a motor-cab. He also submits that if this aspect has been overlooked or breached by the other authorities who may have permitted such registration that all necessary corrective steps will be taken. He also advanced the submission that the authorities have looked into the classification of various vehicles and that there are certain tax implications, but that issue is extraneous to the dispute in the present case.