The court reaffirmed the interpretation of Rule 269 in the context of seating capacity, distinguishing it from Supreme Court rulings concerning alterations affecting vehicle specifications.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage No.KL-56/E 2793, which is operating as a city route on the strength of Ext.P1 regular permit. The present seating capacity is 38, evidenced by Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, the minimum seating capacity of corresponding vehicle as evident from Rule 269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 is 40. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to reduce the seating capacity by virtue of the first proviso to Rule 269 and a further reduction of 1/5th of the seating capacity by virtue of the second proviso, since the vehicle has separate doors for entry and exit and was also plying as a city route. Accordingly, Ext.P3 application was submitted before the respondent seeking reduction of the seating capacity to 30+1 seats.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the application was filed on 26.06.2019, it is still pending without being considered. The petitioner claimed that by virtue of the decision reported in Kochumon Jacob V Secretary, RTA ( 2003 KLT 522 ) and Ext.P7 judgment of this court, which had followed Kochumon Jacob's case, the petitioner is entitled to get the above benefit. The petitioner laments that Ext.P3 application is not disposed of and seek a relief in the form of a direction to the respondent to dispose of Ext.P3, in the light of the decision reported in Kochumon Jacob's case as followed in Ext.P7.

3. Vehemently opposing the application, the learned senior Government Pleader contended that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in RTO Vs K.Jayachandra and Another (AIR 2019 SC 362) and consequently, the relief sought cannot be granted. It was hence contended that the Writ Petition cannot be allowed and no direction can be given to the respondent to consider Ext.P3 application, much less, within any time limit.

4. In K.Jayachandra's case, the question that came up for consideration was in relation to alteration of the motor vehicle. It was held that the vehicle cannot be altered from the particulars mentioned in the certificate of registration or at variance with those originally specified by the manufacturer. Relying on the explanation to Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act it was held that alteration means a change in the vehicle which results in a change in its basic feature. In the light of the above decision, the relief sought cannot be granted, it was contended.

5. Supreme Court in K.Jayachandra's case was considering alteration in the motor vehicle, in the light of Section 52 , 27 and 28, Rule 126 and Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and Rule 96, 103 and Rule 261 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989.

6. In the above decision the issue involved was question of alteration, which affects the basic structure of vehicle which results in the change in basic feature. The claim made in Ext.P3 is one invoking Rule 269, which is the specific provision relating to seating capacity of the stage carriage. Rule 269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules , 1989 was not under consideration in Jayachandra's case. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned senior Government Pleader.

7. Having considered the above, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGULAR PERMIT WITH ITS NO.P.ST.11/224/1992.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WITH ITS NO.KL 56/E 2793.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.06.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT WITH ITS NO.P.ST.11/39/2006.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED

07.05.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE CO