GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. R T O ALLEPPEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing registration No. KLI 5850. The vehicle was registered on 15.5.1989. As per the then existing rules, the registered owner of the vehicle was bound to maintain only 45 seats in the vehicle being the minimum prescribed under the Rules. The registered owner applied to the authorities for increasing the seats and the seats were increased to 50 and the registered owner has been operating the vehicle till now. The registered owner thereafter filed an application under S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for alteration of the vehicle. It was contended that R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (for short 'the Rules') which prescribes the minimum seating capacity of a stage carriage was not applicable to the vehicles in view of R.269(4) of the Rules. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to operate the vehicle with 43 seats. The second respondent rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on the ground that there will be loss of revenue and also on the ground that the reduction of seats would inconvenience to the travelling public.

(2.) We heard the petitioner's counsel and the Government Pleader. It was vehemently submitted by the petitioner's counsel that new rules are not applicable and as per the old rules, the petitioner is entitled to operate the vehicle with 43 seats and S.52 of the Act gives him power to seek alteration of the vehicle. It is true that the petitioner can file an application under S.52 of the Act for alteration of the vehicle. The petitioner has not challenged the vires of either S.52 or R.269 of the Rules. S.52 of the Act does not give any right to the registered owner to alter his vehicle in the manner he likes. The authorities can very well consider the application and pass appropriate orders. In the instant case, the authorities took into consideration that it will cause inconvenience to the passengers if the seating capacity is reduced from 50 to 43. It was also noted by the authorities that if the seats are reduced, it would cause loss of revenue. In Muraleedharan Pillai v. RTO, Kollam ( 1992 (1) KLT 726 ) a learned single Judge of this court held that the reduction of revenue is a valid ground to reject the application for alteration of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the observation made by the learned single Judge in the penultimate paragraph of that judgment to the effect that seating capacity could be reduced to minimum. But S.52 of the Act does not give any right, as such, to the registered owner. In the instant case, the registered owner himself opted for 50 seats. He has been operating his vehicle with 50 seats and nothing is stated before us why he wanted to reduce the seating capacity from 50 to 43. Evidently, it shows that he wants to pay lesser amount of tax. We do not think it as a valid ground and no interference is called for. Original Petition is without any merit and it is dismissed.