ORDER
1. By this petition, the petitioner, who is an operator of a maxi-cab bearing registration No. KA. 17/8247 having seating capacity of 9+1 under a permit, has prayed to quash respondent’s order No. RTO/DVG/KA. 17-8247/2000-2001, dated 8-5-2000 per Annexure-A, purporting to be the endorsement issued to petitioner rejecting his request for alteration of his said vehicle from maxi-cab to motor-cab with a seating capacity of 5+1.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels on both sides.
3. The impugned order has been passed by respondent relying on a Single Bench decision of this Court in L. Venu v Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, where it was held that under the relevant provisions of Section 52 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) read with Rules 49 and 151 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (‘the Rules’ for short), such a structural change of a transport vehicle or any vehicle for that purpose was not permissible. The decision in the case of Venu, supra, was rendered on 22nd October, 1993. Subsequently, there has been a significant change effected by inserting explanation to Section 52 of the Act by amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 with effect from 14-11-1994 by which the structural change of a vehicle as has been sought by the petitioner is made permissible. Section 52 of the Act deals with alteration in the motor vehicles. The material provisions thereof are excerpted below:
“52. Alteration in motor vehicles.–(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate unless.-
(a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, of the alteration he proposes to make; and
(b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration:
Provided. …..
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) xxx xxx xxx
(5) xxx xxx xxx
(6) xxx xxx xxx
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, “alteration” means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in change in its basic feature”.
The explanation in plain words to Section 52 read with Section 52(1) makes it abundantly clear that alteration of a registered motor vehicle from one category to another category or class is permissible under the Act and that such alteration may be a change in structure of its body involving change in its basic feature, subject, of course, to any check or limitation on such change expressly provided by any other provision of the Act. Therefore, in view of this subsequent change in the material provision of Section 52, the ruling of the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Venu, supra, no longer holds the field. I am fortified in my conclusion with the recent Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 704 and 705 of 1998, DD: 31-3-1998, whereby similar endorsement of the registering authority issued to the owner of a motor
vehicle has been set aside. As a result, the impugned order Annexure-A of respondent is liable to be quashed.
4. Hence, the petition is allowed. The impugned Order No. RTO/DVG/KA. 17-8247/2000-2001, dated 8-5-2000 at Annexure-A is quashed.