VISHWANATHA MENON Vs. ADDL REGISTERING AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that is referred for consideration of the full Bench in these cases relates to the jurisdiction of registering authority under S. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the matter of granting permission for alteration of motor vehicle. In the order of reference passed by a learned single judge in O. P. Nos. 18437 & 18438 of 1996, it was observed that there is apparent conflict between the Bench decisions of this Court on this issue. Learned Singe Judge further felt that whether loss of revenue can be a reason for denying permission for alteration of the vehicles under S. 52 is also an important question. When the matter came up before a Bench, the petitions were referred for consideration of a Larger Bench on the ground that there are conflicting decisions nn the issue. O. P. 4446/97 was also referred for consideration of the Larger Bench since the very same issue is raised in that petition also.

(2.) IN O. P. Nos. 18437 & 18438 of 1996, petitioners are owners of contract carriages of Mahindra & Mahindra bearing registration Nos. KL-8/a. 505 and KL-9/a. 6559 respectively. KL-8/a. 505 was manufactured in the year 1990 having seating capacity of 16 in all (including driver ). The unladen weight of the vehicle is 2030 kg. and wheel base is 265 cros. Maker's classification is Mahindra FJ 470 DS 4 2wd omni bus. As far as kl-9/a. 6559 is concerned, except that it was a vehicle manufactured in 1992, all other particulars are the same. Petitioners wanted to reduce the seating capacity from 16 to 12. Ext. P1 notice dated. 28. 7. 1995 and 28. 8. 1995 respectively were given by the petitioners as contemplated under S. 52 of the motor Vehicles Act seeking permission to alter the vehicles. After some correspondence and inspection of the vehicle, registering authority issued Ext. P2 order dated. 4. 9. 1995 to the petitioner in O. P. 18. 437/96 rejecting the application for reduction of the seating capacity from 16 to 12. The reasons given are that the application for reduction of seating capacity was against law and if permission is granted, it would result in loss of revenue to the Government. Petitioner in O. P. 18438/96 was also given a reply which is produced as Ext. P2 dated. 21. 9. 1995. The application was rejected for the reasons that the purpose for which reduction in seating capacity is not specified in the application and that if permission is granted for reduction of seating capacity. Government will loose revenue considerably. Reference is made to a judgment of this court in O. P. 3902/ 92dt. 31. 3. 1992 to the effect that the owner has no right to reduce the seats of his vehicle in any manner he likes.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the State in o. P. 4446/97. It is contended therein that vehicles belonging to the petitioners are built with stereotype bodies with seating capacity of 16 in all as has been so designed by the manufacturers. Their applications were rejected by the Department since it was found that the motive behind those applications was lacking in bonafides. The attempt was to get an amendment in Entry No. 13 of the registration certificate with the ultimate object to seek reduction in the rate of tax with reference to the number of seats. It is also contended that the mere increase or decrease in the number of seats would not amount to alteration within the meaning of S. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as was held by this Court in the judgment in W. A. 694/94. Seating capacity is different from actual number of seats. Seating capacity can be altered only by a suitable structural alteration. Such structural alteration requires prior permission from concerned regional transport authority. None of the petitioners had a case that they were making structural alteration which would come within the meaning of S. 52 of the motor Vehicles Act as was clarified by this Court in the judgment in W. A. 832/96. It is clear from the averments contained in the counter affidavit that the stand taken by the respondent-State is that in order to reduce the number of seats in a contract carriage vehicle of the nature owned by the petitioners, there is no necessity to seek permission under S. 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, since reduction of number of seats would not amount to reduction in seating capacity as was originally entered in the registration certificate. At the same time, State has a further contention that by such reduction, the owners cannot be allowed to defeat the revenue.