IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WA.No. 27 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.13695/2011 Dated 01/12/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------ BIJU, S/O. ANTHONY, 7/511, KANNAMPILLY HOUSE, ANNAMANADA, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------- THE JOINT R.T.O., IRINJALAKUDA-680 121. BY G.P. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.27 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the appellant and Government Pleader for the respondent. The appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the matter for the reason that the appellant has got an alternate remedy by way of appeal against Ext.P2 order that was challenged before the learned Single Judge. 2. After hearing both sides we do not think there is any need to relegate the party to alternate remedy because relief sought is quite a simple one and the order impugned is intrinsically unsustainable. We, therefore, proceed to consider the case on merits. 2. The appellant purchased a contract carriage which has a seating capacity of 15 including driver. The vehicle was originally registered as a contract carriage and the tax was also paid at the rate applicable to contract carriages based on seating capacity. After purchase of the vehicle, appellant reduced the number of seats to 10 W.A. 27/2011 2 and sought for permission to alter the vehicle as one for personal use i.e. for conversion of category of the vehicle from contract carriage to private service vehicle (Omni bus). Appellant's case is that appellant is entitled to get change of classification with change in tax endorsement in terms of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Government Pleader submitted that the action of the appellant in reducing the seating capacity without prior permission is illegal. We do not think there is any significance for this because the appellant has already applied for conversion of the vehicle to private service vehicle and he has specifically requested for permission to reduce seating capacity. The question whether a vehicle should be used as a contract carriage or be retained as a private service vehicle is to be decided by the owner. However, Government Pleader rightly pointed out that no conversion is permissible which has adverse consequence to the Revenue. This is because the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act provides for levy of tax based on number of seated passengers which means tax is payable based on seating capacity which is a matter rather fixed by the W.A. 27/2011 3 manufacturer in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. So much so, even after conversion of the vehicle from a 15 seater to a 10 seater in terms of request of the appellant, the appellant will continue to be liable to pay tax for the 15 seats. In other words, even after conversion, the tax endorsement in the R.C. Book should be for a seating capacity of 15. Subject to fixation of tax liability for the 15 seater vehicle, the appellant is entitled to have the vehicle converted into a private service vehicle for personal use. Accordingly Writ Appeal is allowed by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by quashing Ext.P2 produced in the W.P.(C) with direction to the Joint Regional Transport officer to make necessary entries in the R.C. Book converting the appellant's vehicle to a private service vehicle with 10 seats, but with tax endorsement for 15 seats in terms of the Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. If the permit issued to the appellant's contract carriage is valid, it should be cancelled simultaneous on conversion of the vehicle to private service vehicle. Whatever is the regulation applicable to private service vehicle, W.A. 27/2011 4 whether it be permit or fitness, it is for the appellant to comply with the same and the R.T.O. should advise him correctly. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms