The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of R.269 and R.289 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules do not apply to vehicles registered before the enforcement of the rules, and the reduction of seating capacity must be in the public interest.

K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage having a regular permit. The vehicle is having register No. KLV 3139. The bus is operating on the route Elamballur -Sakthikulangara. The permit was issued to the petitioner as a town service with effect from 10.7.1982. The vehicle is having a seating capacity of 53 as per the registration particulars. The vehicle is admittedly registered in the year 1977. The petitioner approached the Regional Transport Officer to reduce the seating capacity of the vehicle. That request was declined as per Ext. P2 stating that such a request cannot be considered since the proposed alteration will cause heavy revenue loss to the Government. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P2 and seeking a direction to the respondent to endorse the seating capacity of the petitioner's vehicle KLV 3139 as 42 in all including the standing capacity.

2. The basis for the petitioner's request is R.289 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules introduced with effect from 14.6.89. It is provided in the sub-r.(1) that the seating capacity of the vehicle shall be commensurate with the wheel base of the vehicle as contained in the table in the sub-rule with the exceptions carved out in the proviso. The first proviso is to the effect that the minimum seating capacity as provided in table No. 1 may be reduced by two seats in the case of stage carriage with separate entrance and exit. The second proviso is to the effect that such minimum number so reduced may be reduced further by one fifth in the case of stage carriages operating as City/Town service. The petitioner therefore, submits that as the stage carriage permit made being one relating to Town service, the existing seating capacity of 55 shall be reduced to 35. On the basis of it, the petitioner contends that the orders in Ext. P2 is illegal. The only consideration contained in Ext. P2 is the loss of revenue. That is not at all an aspect in terms of R.269 to be considered for reduction of seating capacity and thus to alter the permit. Therefore, Ext. P2 is illegal, the petitioner contends.

3. It is pointed out by the Government Pleader that sub-r.(1) of R.269 is not applicable in the light of the sub-r.(3) thereof. Sub-r.(3) thereof prescribes that sub-r.(1) shall not so apply to a stage carriage registered before the commencement of these rules; but when its body is reconstructed at any time it shall provide the maximum number of seats possible in the existing body, to the satisfaction of the registering authority subject however to the minimum required under sub-r.(1) and without reducing the existing number of seats". Therefore, the proviso to sub-r.(1) which enables the registering authority to reduce the seating capacity does not apply, to a vehicle registered before 14.6.89. Admittedly the petitioner's vehicle was registered as early as in 1977. Therefore, the provisos to sub-r.(1) to R.269 have no application to the petitioner's vehicle.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the words employed in sub-r.(3) is that "sub-r.(1) shall not so apply" to mean that the main part of sub-r.(1) will not apply but the provisions shall apply. It is the proviso which permits reduction of number of seats. But number of seats is provided in the main part of the sub-rule. If there is no provision providing for the number of seats, there cannot be any application of the provisos to reduce the seats. Therefore, the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted.

5. If any meaning has to be ascribed to the words'sub-r.(1) shall not so apply', it shall be sub-r.(1) shall not apply to reduce the seats as provided in the provisos to sub-r.(1). Then alone it will have a meaning. On that construction, the petitioner cannot get a relief as prayed for because the vehicle was registered long prior to the commencement of this rule. So, whether the sub-r.(1) apply totally or in part, in the light o