- (1.)THE petitioner is the registered owner of two tourist vehicles bearing registration Nos. KA-20 C 5155 and KA-20 8694. Conversion of the vehicles was sought from Tourist vehicle as stage carriage vehicles with enhancement of the seating capacity of 48 + 2. Accordingly, alteration was granted by second respondent. The petitioner provided push back seats in the vehicles and started operating them on routes in question after obtaining permits under the provisions of the M. V. Act of 1988 read with KMV Rules of 1989. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent got a complaint lodged through the M. L. A. with the second respondent, and on the basis of the same the vehicles were checked and reports were sent to him. On the basis of the same, in Annexure-A dated 27-9-2002 the 2nd respondent withdrew the permission granted earlier to the petitioner for alteration of the vehicles and directed the petitioner to restore the vehicles as Tourist Vehicles. Against the said order, appeal was filed before the first respondent and the same was dismissed on, 19-2-2003 as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the. impugned order at Annexure-E dated 15-3-2003 is passed canceling the Registration Certificate of the vehicles on the ground; that they do not comply with the requirements of Rule 128 of the Central motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as CMV Rules) and to take action under Section 53 (1) (a) of the Central motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the CMV Act ). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed seeking to quash Annexures-A, C and E.
(2.)STATEMENT of objections are filed by the respondents separately justifying the impugned orders and praying to dismiss the writ petitions. Emphasis is placed upon rule 151 (2) and Rule 93 (6) of the Karnataka Motor vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as kmv Rules ). According to the transport authorities, push back seats shall be provided only to tourist vehicles and not for stage carriage vehicles and road tax has to be paid at the rates specified for tourist vehicles.
(3.)MR. P. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon rule 148 of the kmv Rules to contend that providing push-back seats are permissible. According to him, the impugned orders are vitiated on account of non consideration of the said rule. This contention cannot be accepted in view of Rules 93 (6) and 128 (10} of the CMV Rules read with Section 53 of the CMV Act. A perusal of Annexure-A disclose that upon inspection of the vehicles, it was found that the seating arrangements of the vehicles in question are not as prescribed in Rules 148, 149, and 150 of the KMV Rules. It was also noticed that the over hang of the vehicles is 60% excess than the prescribed limit and with a view to provide more seats the chasis of the vehicles are welded and their length are increased. This is a finding of fact which is based on actual inspection of the vehicles by the competent Authority. Therefore, the authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders. It is for the petitioner either to run the vehicles as Tourist vehicles by obtaining the requisite permits and paying the tax or to alter the vehicle in conformity with the aforementioned provisions of the act and rules.