K.T. Thomas, Ag. C.J.—The question to be determined in these two cases is the same and hence we thought it convenient to dispose of them by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners in both cases are owners of the "Light Motor Vehicle" each and they have applied for registration of their vehicles before the Registering Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). In one case, the Registering Authority dismissed the application as per Ext. P4 order against which the applicant filed Original Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. A learned Single Judge allowed the Original Petition and directed the Registering Authority to register the vehicle. That judgment is now being challenged by the Registering Authority in the appeal before us. The other case is the Original Petition filed by the other applicant on the ground that the Registering Authority has not passed order on his application and hence prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the Registering Authority to register the vehicle as requested by him.

3. The stand adopted by the Registering Authority in both cases is that the vehicle concerned in each case has a seating capacity of nine whereas the ap