ZIA-UR-RAHAMAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. MNP 6639 was registered in the name of one S.A. Pasha as a tourist vehicle by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Manipur with a seating capacity of 34+1. The petitioner purchased the said vehicle on 5-4-1984. Change of address of the registered owner was effected by the R.T.O. Bangalore under Section 30 of the Act with effect from 20-8-1983, and the seating capacity was also altered from 34+1 to 35+2. After the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner the transfer was recorded in the Registration Certificate as per order dated 5-4-1984 made by the R.T.O. Bangalore West. By order dated 23-8-1983 the R.T.O. Bangalore permitted alteration of the seating capacity from 35+2 to 34+1 in accordance with the Government Notification dated 5-4-1976 since it was covered by an All India Tourist permit. The alteration was permitted with the following condition:

(2.) Sri. C.N. Achar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in SANJEEVAIAH v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ILR1985 KAR 4088 submitted that the R.T.O. was bound by the decision of this Court and application of Rule 218 to the petitioner's case on the strength of the condition which had been imposed by the R.T.O. while permitting alteration is without jurisdiction.

(3.) He relies on the observations contained in paras 8 and 10 in Sanjeevalah's case1 wherein it is categorically held that in respect of the motor vehicles registered outside the State of Karnataka, the R.T.Os. functioning within the State of Karnataka have no power to insist on compliance with Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules.