ANAND Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER DHARWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has sought for quashing of order Annexure 'a' to the writ petition which is an endorsement bearing No. RTO/new/reg/tr/maxi CAB/dwd/96-97 dated 27-2-1997 and has also prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to register petitioner's new vehicle as maxi cab with seating capacity of 12 + 1. Vide Annexure-'a', the Regional Transport Officer, Dharwad has rejected the petitioner's application in the prescribed form for registration of Eicher Motors Ltd. , bearing Chassis No. 14ef 6 1143284 to register as Maxi Cab with seating capacity of 12 + 1 on the ground that "the M. V. Eicher Motors Ltd. , having a wheel base of 3350 mm. is not exempted under the Govt. Notification No. CT. TIR. PR. 24 dated 3-5-1995 issued under Rule 152 (2) (3) of KMV Rules, 1989 to register as a maxi cab with seating capacity of 12 + 1. Hence, his application is rejected and the application is returned herewith. " Having felt aggrieved from that order, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader also.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent rejecting the application had acted illegally and it had failed to take note of the principles of law as laid down by this Court while examining the exemption clause under the Rules and the Notification issued by the Government in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's vehicle which has a wheel base of 3350 mm. , which comes within the range of 2260 and 3760 mm. and as such, exemption conferred under Notification could be extended to the petitioner's vehicle even if it did not come within the purview of Column No. 2 of the Notification. Learned counsel made reference to Notifications dated 4-11-1991, 26-3-1992, 13-4-1993 and on this basis submitted that these three Notifications indicate the wheel base of the petitioner's vehicle have been covered in between 2260 and 3760 mm. of the last Notification of 1993 and the exemption benefit should have been granted to the petitioner's vehicle also from operation of sub-rule (2) of Rule 151 of the Rules irrespective of the fact that the petitioner's vehicle is made up of by Eicher Motor Ltd. , The learned counsel further submitted that even though Eicher Motor Limited make up is not mentioned in Column No. 2 of the Notification or either under the subsequent Notifications because of the wheel base is in between the figures 2260 and 3760 mm. , the RTO should have taken that exemption and should have granted the exemption to the petitioner's vehicle from operation of Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the single Judge decision of this Court in Gaffar Khan v. Regional Transport Authority, (W. P. No. 22572/1992 decided on July 19, 1993 ). He also placed reliance on another judgment of the same Judge in writ petition No. 31518/1994 V. S. Hukkeri v. Regional Transport Officer, Dharwad. Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner also made reference to the decision dated 19th December 1994 delivered by Hon'ble Sri T. S. Thakur, J. , in writ petition No. 33490/94 and the decision dated 5th July 1986 in Writ Petition No. 16528/96 Doriswamy Naidu v. Regional Transport Officer : Registring Officer in support of his contentions and he has put emphasis on Paragraph 3 thereof. I have perused those judgments. Before I proceed to deal with those judgments, I think it would be proper to make a reference to the provisions under the Rules.