The main legal point established is that the word 'nature' in Sec. 59(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not include 'capacity' and that any restriction on the rights of the applicant cannot be impliedly imported.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the resolution passed by the 2nd respondent in Subject No. 173/ 87-88 dated 16-1-1988 (vide Annexure 'a') and also the order of 1st respondent passed in URA No. 98/1988 dated 4-3- 1988 (vide Annexure 'b') and sought the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing annexures 'a' and 'b' and further for a mandamus directing 2nd respondent to grant replacement of the vehicle as prayed for by the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit authorised to operate on the route Mangalore to Malleshwara and by vehicle bearing No. CTA 9878 of 1987 model having a seating capacity of 48+2 + 10. Thereafter, the petitioner acquired a vehicle bearing No. CR X 9877 which is also of 1987 model vehicle having a seating capacity of 32 + 2+7 (Mitsubishi ). The petitioner applied on 6-1-1988 for replacement of the present vehicle of 1987 model to subserve public interest.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent vide resolution dated : 16th January, 1988 in Subject no. 173/87-88 rejected the application vide Annexure 'a'. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and this appeal also came to be dismissed.

( 4 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders and his main contention is that the vehicle which he seeks to introduce in the place of the old vehicle is of the latest model provided with modern amenities though with lesser seating capacity providing better service to the commuters and that the seating capacity is not the criteria for deciding whether or not permission should be granted under Sec 59 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the act') r/w Rule 131 of the Karnataka motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Rules' ). It is further submitted by the petitioner that the impugned orders are mis-conceived since the provisions of law have not been properly construed.

( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for respondents-1 and 2 is that the words 'same nature' found in Sec. 59 (2) of the Act are comprehensive enough to mean and include seating capacity also and it is relevant to consider the seating capacity while disposing of the application filed under S. 59 (2) of the act. According to the learned counsel, since introduction of new vehicle would involve lessening of the seating capacity, it would result in reduced service to the commuters and therefore, the authorities were justified in rejecting the application.

( 6 ) IT is necessary to consider the provisions of Sec. 59 (2) of the Act. The said provision reads thus :"59 (2) The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. "

( 7 ) THE corresponding rule is to be found in Rule 131 (2) of the Rules, which reads thus :"131 (2) Upon receipt of an application under sub-rule (1), the Regional transport Authority may in its discretion reject the application :- (i) if it has previous to the application, given reasonable notice of its intention to reduce the number of transport vehicles of that clause generally or in respect of the route or area to which the permit applies ; or (ii) if the new vehicle differs in material respects from the old ; or (iii) if the holder of the permit has contravened any of the provisions thereof. "

( 8 ) NOW, it is to be seen that the order passed vide Annexure 'a' by the 2nd respondent is based on the reasoning that from the beginning, larger capacity vehicles were being operated on the route in question and that the reasons to put the vehicle with lesser seating capacity on Ghat section cannot be accepted as there is no statutory provision. It is, therefore, clear that respondent No. 2 rejected the application only on the basis that new vehicle has a lesser seating capacity. Similarly, the order passed by the 1st respondent is based on the reasoning that the