M S POORNIMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of preliminary hearing, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondent and to receive instructions. Accordingly he has secured instructions. As the petition can be disposed of on a short point, it is heard for final disposal.

(2.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the permission to alter the vehicle must be deemed to have been granted under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and to quash the endorsement dated 24-2-89 bearing No. RTO. MYS. CTM- 9927/88-89 at Annexure - D, passed by the R.T.O. and the Registering Authority, Mysore.

(3.) Petitioner is a registered owner of the tourist vehicle bearing registration No. CTM-9927 with the seating capacity of 29 + 1. She made an application on 4-2-89 under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act - before the respondent seeking permission to alter the seating capacity of the vehicle from 29 + 1 to 6 + 1 to use it as a luxury taxi cab. The respondent on the same date sent a communication to the petitioner stating that her application is being processed and she should not alter the seating capacity of the vehicle without the specific orders from the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner addressed another communication on 21-2-89 stating that as no communication has been sent to her either approving the proposed alteration or rejecting the same, the proposed alteration of the seating capacity of the vehicle in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act must be deemed to have been granted. On receipt of the letter dated 21-2-89, the respondent has sent the impugned endorsement dated 24-2-89 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') the permission sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, therefore it is rejected.