ORDER
Vasanthakumar, J.
1. This Writ Petition is directed against the endorsement dated 28.6.1993 issued to the petitioner by the Registering Authority in respect of his notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). Before dealing with the contentions advanced by the petitioner, it is relevant to advert to the various provisions governing the alteration in Motor Vehicle, Section .52 of the Act reads:-
“Alteration in motor vehicle.-
(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 that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories, if such change does not exceed two per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration.
(2) Where a registering authority receives a notice under Sub-section (1), it shall, within seven days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or otherwise:
Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of seven days, the approval of such authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, the owners of not less than ten transport vehicles to alter any vehicle owned by them so as to replace the engine thereof without the approval of the registering authority,
(4) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority.
(5) Where any alteration has been made in a motor vehicle either with the approval of the registering authority given or deemed to have been given under Sub-section (2), or by reason of replacement of its engine without such approval under Sub-section (3), the owner of the vehicle shall, within fourteen days of the making of the alteration, report the alteration to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and shall forward the certificate of registration to that authority together with the prescribed fee in order that particulars of the alteration may be entered therein.
(6) A registering authority other than the original registering authority making any such entry shall communicate the details of the entry to the original registering authority.”
Rule 49 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 reads:-
“Notice of alteration of Motor Vehicles:- (1) The notice by the owner of a motor vehicle to the registering authority in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 52 shall be in Form KMV.29.
(2) The registering authority may on receipt of such notice require the owner of a motor vehicle to produce the certificate of registration in respect of the vehicle before him or his nominee, within seven days from the date on which such requisition was made for the purpose of verification of the entries therein.”
Rule 151 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 reads:-
“Limit of seating capacity:- (1) Subject to the provisions of the rule 146 regarding seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver and conductor or attender that a transport vehicle other than goods carriage, Motor cab may be permitted to carry, shall not exceed the number determined by dividing by 58 kilograms the difference in kilograms between the gross laden weight less 109 kilograms and the unladen weight of the vehicle.
(2) The minimum seating capacity of a vehicle shall be directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. In transport vehicles other than goods carriages and motor cabs the minimum number of seats including to seats for driver and conductor or attender to be provided shall be as specified in column (2) of the Table below:–
TABLE
Wheel
Base
Minimum
seating capacity
254 to
293 cm.
16
294 to
305 cm.
20
306 to
343 cm.
25
344 to
407 cm.
30
408 to
432 cm.
35
433 to
496 cm.
45
497 to
534 cm.
50
534 to
541 cm.
55
541 to
561 cm.
60
above
561 cm.
65
3) Nothing in Sub-rule (2) shall apply to, –
a) Stage Carriage proposed to be operated in towns and cities and within a radius of 25 kms. from the limits of such towns and cities.
b) Tourist vehicles covered by permits issued under Sub-section (9) of Section 88 of the Act.”
The Registering Authority on 28.6.1993 issued an Endorsement which reads as follows:-
“RTO.BNG:C:PR.144:TR:93-94
Office of the
Regional Transport Officer
Bangalore (C) Dt. 28.6.93
ENDORSEMENT
Sub: Alteration – Maxi Cab to Motor Cab with seating capacity
12 + 1 to 6 + 1 in respect of vehicle KA-01/2411.
Ref: Application in form No. 29 dated 23.6.93 filed by Sri
L.Venu of Bangalore –
—-
The Registered owner of the vehicle has applied for alteration of the vehicle from the existing Maxi Cab to Motor Cab with seating capacity from 12 + 1 to 6 + 1. The vehicle is constructed and adopted to carry more than 6 passengers whereas the Registered owner has requested for alteration as Motor Cab with seating capacity 6 + 1 which is contrary to the definition of motor cab. As the motor cab is denied under sub-section 25 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. “that the motor vehicle constructed or adopted to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding driver for hire or reward.”
The above definition enumerates that a vehicle having constructed or adopted to carry more than the specified passengers (not more than 6) as per sub-section 25 of Section 2 will not be termed as motor cab.
In view of the above, the application of the Registered owner for alteration of the vehicle from Maxi cab to Motor cab is hereby rejected.
Sd/-Asst. R.T.O.”
2. The petitioner being aggrieved of the aforesaid Endorsement issued by the authority has challenged the legality of the order and has sought the following reliefs:-
i) To quash the order/endorsement bearing No. RTO/BNG/ C/PR.144/TR/93-94 dated 28.6.1993 marked under Annexure-A by issue of a Writ of Certiorari of any other appropriate writ, order or direction;
ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to grant the alteration as prayed for by the petitioner in respect of vehicle No. KA01/2411.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that endorsement impugned cannot be legally sustained since the alteration sought for is only for conversion of Maxi Cab into Motor Cab by reducing seating capacity from 12 + 1 to 6 + 1 which is in conformity with the definition of Motor Cab as defined under Sub-section (25) of Section 2 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invites this Court’s attention to the ratio decidendi of the case in JAVARE GOWDA v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, , the relevant passage being at para 7. It reads:-
“We are unable to agree with the view that the application could be rejected on the ground that reduction of seating capacity would have the effect of reducing the tax liability If that reason constitutes a valid ground for rejecting an application for alteration of the seating capacity of a vehicle when every application for reducing the seating capacity of a vehicle could be rejected for, in every such case there would be reduction of tax liability. Further, we are also unable to agree that the application for reducing the seating capacity could be rejected on the ground that there would be loss of valuable space in the vehicle for the reason, the decision as to whether the vehicle should have more seating capacity which makes the travailing less comfortable or should have less seating capacity which makes the travelling more comfortable, is again a matter for the owner of the vehicle to decide having due regard to business considerations. For instance it cannot be said that in respect of a motor car just because the seating capacity is six it would be engaged or used by a party of six passengers. It is always possible that a taxi having seating capacity of six could be engaged by 3 or 2 persons or even a single person. Therefore, we are unable to agree that not to permit the reducing of the seating capacity is in the interest of general public.”
It is seen from the scheme of the Act, there are different types of vehicles such as contract carnage, maxi-cab, motor-cab, goods carriage, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle, invalid carriage, light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle, motor car, motor cycle, omnibus, stage carriage, private service vehicles etc.
4. For purpose of this case, suffice to confine to the definition of Maxi-cab and Motor-cab.
Section 2(22) defines Maxi cab:
“Maxi Cab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.”
Section 2(25) defines Motor Cab.
“Motor cab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward.”
5. The only question that requires for consideration is whether it is permissible in law to seek re-alteration of a vehicle from one type of vehicle to another type of vehicle by either enhancing number of seats or by reducing number of seats under Section 52 of the Act read with Rules 49 and 151 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 and what is the meaning to be attached to the word alteration. Various meanings to be attached to the word alteration are:-
a) Alteration in its common parlance means a change of a thing from one form or state to another that is making a thing different from what it was but without destroying its identity (underlining is mine)
b) Alter means to change in one or more respects but not entirely or to make a thing different without changing it into something else.
c) In the Book titled ‘Law Lexicon Judicial expression of words and phrases compiled and edited by P.Ramanatha Aiyar it is observed :-
“Alter is to be distinguished from its synonyms ‘change and amend’. To change may import the substitution of an entirely different thing while to alter is to operate upon a subject matter which continues objectively the same while modified in some particular. To amend implies that modification made in the
subject improves it which is not necessarily the case with an alteration. An amendment always involves an alteration but an alteration does not always amend. Alteration is defined as change effected of form or state especially one which does not affect the identity of subject, and to change is to render something especially different from what it was even to loss of identity or the substitution of one thing for another, whereas to alter is to make different in material respect as in form or detail without implying loss of identity.”
6. In the instant case by invoking the provisions of Section 52 read with Rule 49 the petitioner under the guise of alteration intends to change the identity of the type of vehicle from one type of vehicle Maxicab into another type of vehicle namely to Motor Cab by merely reducing the seating capacity from 12+1 to 6+1 which it is to be stated is not intended under the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder.
It is to be stated that the petitioner by invoking Section 52 of the Act intends to effect absolute change of identity of Maxi cab into Motor cab which imports destruction of existence of a thing altered or changed or loss of its identity which is not the real intendment of the Section and Rules governing it since a thing which ceases to exist cannot in any sense be said to be altered when word alter is used is to vary without entire change. Analogously, it is also to be stated that where improvements are limited for repairing interior arrangements of an old building to suit the convenience of the owner they are repairs or alterations, and in as much as reduction of seats from 12+1 to 6+1 would result in making interior more spacious but not with the intent to convert or modify the same into motor cab. This Court in M.S.POORNIMA v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MYSORE, 1989(3) K.L.J. 369, has dealt on the scope of Section 32(2) of the Act 1939 and Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963 which are substituted by Section 52 of the Act, 1988 and Rule 151 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The relevant observations being found at para-5 and 9. Para 5 reads:-
“On the contrary it is contended on behalf of the respondent, that the vehicle in question is admittedly, a tourist vehicle and it falls within the definition of ‘public service vehicle’; therefore, the seating capacity of the vehicle has to conform to Rule 216 of the Rules which has been valid by the Supreme Court in State of Mysore and Anr. v. K.G.Jagannath, . Therefore, it is submitted that as the wheel base of the vehicle falls under the 4th category mentioned in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules, in law it is impermissible to reduce the seating capacity of the vehicle from 29+1 to 6+1. Therefore, the permission sought for by the petitioner itself is illegal and impermissible. The fact that no intimation is sent to the petitioner either approving the alteration sought for or rejecting it within a period of 7 days as provided under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is of no avail to the petitioner because the law does not approve or encourage an illegal act. Deeming provision would come into operation only if what is sought for is permissible in law and not otherwise, that no such act which is impermissible in law can be deemed to have been granted under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act.”
Para-9 reads:-
“On a reading of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 32 of the Act, it emerges the owner of a motor vehicle proposing to alter the vehicle in such a way that the particulars contained in the registration certificate are no longer accurate, he can do so only on giving a notice of the same to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and obtaining his approval to the proposed alteration. It is made incumbent upon the registering authority to communicate its approval or refusal to the proposed alteration to the owner of a motor vehicle who has been given notice of the proposed alteration within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. If the registering authority fails to communicate its decision either of approval or refusal, within the aforesaid period of 7 days, the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act declares that the approval of the registering authority to the proposed alteration must be deemed to have been given. Therefore, necessarily a question will arise as to whether a deemed approval to the proposed alteration as per the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is available in a case where such alteration is impermissible in law. It is already pointed out that having regard to the nature of the vehicle in question, the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules
are attracted and the seating in the vehicle is required to be in conformity with the particulars stated in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules, as such the notice of the proposed alteration given by the petitioner is contrary to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules. In such a case, if the deemed approval to the proposed alteration given by the petitioner is contrary to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rule,. In such a case, if the deemed approval to the proposed alteration is held to be applicable, and available, it will be nothing but encouraging an illegal act. That is not the object of the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. No law encourages or permits an illegal act. The object of a deeming provision in the context in which it occurs is to see that if a notice of the proposed alteration is permissible in law and the registering authority has unnecessarily failed to communicate its approval to the proposed alteration, the owner of the motor vehicle should not suffer for the inaction on the part of the registering authority and he can proceed with the proposed alteration on the basis that approval to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given. Thus the deeming provision is available to the alteration of the motor vehicle which is permissible in law and not to such alteration of the vehicle which is impermissible in law. Even in a case where the proposed alteration is impermissible in law, the deeming provision as contained in the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is held to be available, it would lead to very strange-situations and would result in permitting an act which is prohibited by law.”
Further, the Supreme Court in STATE OF MYSORE AND Anr. v. K.G.JAGANNATH, has observed:-
“The validity of the Rule at present has to be considered not merely from the point of view of the effect it has on a particular individual like the respondent. It has to be looked at from the point of view of the generally of the motor vehicles operators as well as the public. We have shown above that the vehicles with the minimum capacity available in this country can carry 35 passengers and if, as is alleged by the respondent, the average number of passengers in buses over this route is only 25, the proper thing to do in due course is to reduce the number of vehicles plying on this route. Otherwise, it would mean unnecessary waste of valuable transport space and facility. Buses so released could be used elsewhere to much greater advantage to the travelling public. There are many areas and many routes crying of transport facilities and they would be better served. We are unable to place any weight on the basis of an argument which affects one or two individuals, here by insisting upon this provision of a minimum seating capacity the larger public interest will be served. It causes some inconvenience to a few individuals like the respondent they have got to face the situation. It appears from the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) that he has got four buses running between Doddaballapur and Tumkur. If it is found that the average number of passengers is only 25, the proper thing to do would be for him to cut down his buses on this route from four to three. In that case there can be no question of his suffering any losses or his being affected in any way in the matter of his carrying on his business.”
7. The petitioner in support of his contention relies on certain observations made by this Court in SMT. K.N.SHUBA v. R.T.O., W.P. No. 14102 of 1990, which is to the following effect at para-2 and 3:
Para 2: This petition is directed against an endorsement issued by the respondent stating that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Karnataka Vehicles Rules 1989 do not permit conversion of omnibus into goods vehicle pursuant to an application made by the petitioner in that regard.
Para-3: Even a bare perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act or the Rules disclose that there is no such prohibition. Therefore the endorsement issued by the respondent cannot be sustained.”
8. It is to be stated that the Counsel on record have not brought to the Court’s notice the specific provisions governing alteration of vehicle in the above case as is done in the instant case and as such the ratio decidendi relied upon by the petitioner is not of much assistance, the contentions advanced by the petitioner cannot be legally accepted.
Circumstances do not warrant any interference with the impugned Endorsement. Writ Petition is dismissed.