( 1 ) THE common question raised in these three writ petitions preferred under Art. 226 or 227 of the Constn. , is whether the motor vehicles owned and operated by the petitioners fall within the categorisation of ' contract carriages' or,'omnibuses', as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1929. Since the facts leading to these petitions are almost similar, it wquld be convenient to,dispose them of by the following order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in WP. 2124 of 1973 is Indian Telephone Industries ltd; the petitioner in WP. 2180 of 1973 is Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd; and the petitioner in WP. 542 of 1972 is Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Bangalore. These are all Companies (called herein 'the Company') in the public sector incorporated either under the Companies Act of 1913, or under the companies Act, 1956. The Company owns and operates contract carriages for the benefit of its employees to enable them to come to the workspoit punctually and return to their places of residence after finishing their work. But it is not free of charge. Those who have been afforded with the facility of conveyance, have to pay certain charges. These charges are deducted at the source from their salaries. The charges thus collected, is stated tq be insufficient to meet the operation costs of the fleet of buses and it is being subsidised by the Company. ( 3 ) SINCE the vehicles are covered by 'contract carriage permits', the company is hitherto paying motor vehicles tax of Rs. 35 per seat. It was the case of the Company that its vehicles are wrongly classified as contract carriages, though they are in fact 'omnibuses'. It therefore made an application to the Regional Transport Officer for alteration of the categorisation of its vehicles from 'contract earrings' to 'omnibuses'. The Regional transport Officer rejected the application, against which the Company preferred an appeal to the Commissioner for Transport. One of the, contentions urged in the appeal wa,s that the Company was recovering only nominal charges from its employees for affording them the transport facilities and not plying the vehicles for hire, or reward under a contract express of implied, and therefore the, vehicles shall be categorised as 'omnibuses'. One of the, contentions urged in the appeal wa,s that the Company was recovering only nominal charges from its employees for affording them the transport facilities and not plying the vehicles for hire, or reward under a contract express of implied, and therefore the, vehicles shall be categorised as 'omnibuses'. The Commissioner rejected that contention by observing that the registering authority is not concerned with the question whether the hire is adequate or inadequate and it is concerned only with the question whether there is any hire at all. The Commr. was of the opinion that the motive for running the contract carriage is irrelevant for consideration, and so long as the Company recovers certain charges from its employees for the use of the vehicles, they shall be categorised as 'contract cariages'. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner in WP. 542 of 1972, there was one other point urged, the correctness of which I will consider later in this order. ( 4 ) THESE petitions now brought are based principally on the cotention that having regard to the use to which the vehicles are put to, they should be categorised as 'omnibuses' and not 'contract carriages'. The idea behind this contention is to secure a reduction in the payment of motor vehicles tax. If they are contract carriages, the Company has to pay the tax at the rate of Rs. 35 per seat. If they are omnibuses, a tax of Rs. 10 per seat is payable. These taxes are levied under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation act, 1957. S. 3 provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part A of the Schedule shall be levied on all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads, kept in the State. Item 4 in the Schedule specifies the rate, of tax for motor vehicles plying for hire and used for the transport of passengers and in respect of which permits have been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act. Item 7 in the Schedule specifies the rate of tax for omnibuses It provides that omnibuses (other than those liable to tax under the foreging provisions of the Schedule for every person other than the driver) which the vehicle is constructed or adapted to carry, shall be paid Rs. 10. Item 7 in the Schedule specifies the rate of tax for omnibuses It provides that omnibuses (other than those liable to tax under the foreging provisions of the Schedule for every person other than the driver) which the vehicle is constructed or adapted to carry, shall be paid Rs. 10. From these provisions, it is clear that it is for the Company to establish that its vehicles are not plying for hire and are not liable to tax under item 4 of. the Sch. The expression 'plying for hire' is not found in the Motor Vehicles Act. Slightly a different expression viz. 'passengers for hire or reward' is found from the definitions of 'contract carriage' and 'stage carriage'. Sec. 2 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, defines 'contract carriage' to mean: * * * * * sec. 2 (29) defines 'stage carriage to mean: * * * the Motor Vehicles Act further makes a classification of vehicles regard being had to their capacity to carry passengers S. 2 (15) defines 'motorcar' to mean ' a motor vehicle constructed or adapted or used t, carry not more than six passengers for hire or reward, excluding the driver'. All these and other motor vehicles used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward are called 'public service vehicles'. (S. 2 (25) ). The word 'passenger' is not defined under the. Motor Vehicles act. It is defined under "rule 3 (k) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, to mean 'any person travelling in a public service vehicle other than the driver or the conductor or an employee of the permit holder while on duty'. It means that even an employee who is not on duty, when he travels in a public service vehicle, becomes a passenger. ( 5 ) THE word 'passenger' or the expression 'passenger for hire or reward' is significantly omitted in the definition of 'omnibus' on which the entire case, of the Company is rested. The 'omnibus' is defined under S. 2 (18a) of the Motor Vehicles Act to mean 'any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver'. Omnibus is therefore, a motor vehicle which is not plied for hire, or not at all used to carry passengers for hire or reward. The 'omnibus' is defined under S. 2 (18a) of the Motor Vehicles Act to mean 'any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver'. Omnibus is therefore, a motor vehicle which is not plied for hire, or not at all used to carry passengers for hire or reward. ( 6 ) WITH these different categorisation of motor vehicles, I turn now to the main question urged for the petitioners. It was urged tha,t their motor vehicles notwithstanding the permits granted to them, are not plying for hire, or used for the carriage of passengers for hire, or reward and there is no contract to that effect express or implied between the Management of the Company and its employees. In order to appreciate the contention, it may be necessary to set out the true facts in a little more detail. The petitioner in WP. 542 of 1972 employs about 20,000 workmen and other staff members. The petitioner in WP. 2124 of 1973 has on its rolls 15,000 workers incuding the members of Supervisory staff. The petitioner in WP'. 2180 of 1973 employs about 5,300 workers inclusive of some managerial staff. A large majority of these employees reside at different parts of Bangalore City arid some outside the Corporation limits. In order to secure their presence, well in time at the factory premises, and to lake them back to their residence after the working hours, the Company extends to them, the transport facilities. The Company's vehicles are run exclusively for the benefit of the employees and it is also one of the conditions of the permit. The vehicles are stopped at different places in the area of their qperation toi pick up or set down employees with whom the Management of the Company has already agreed to provide transport facilities. The Management in return deducts certain amount as transport charges from the salaries of, the said emplor yees. The employees wo do not travel in the Company's vehicles are not 'liable to pay any transport charges. The charges so collected undisputedly fall short of the costs of maintenance and operation of the vehicles. The company bears ihe remaining expenditure. The petitioner in WP. 542 of 1972 operates 141 vehicles the petitioner in WP. 2124 of 1973 operates 68 and the petitioner in WP. The charges so collected undisputedly fall short of the costs of maintenance and operation of the vehicles. The company bears ihe remaining expenditure. The petitioner in WP. 542 of 1972 operates 141 vehicles the petitioner in WP. 2124 of 1973 operates 68 and the petitioner in WP. 2180 of 1973 operates 32 motor vehicles with contract carriage permits granted to each of them. ( 7 ) THE contention for the petitioners that the employees who travel in the Company's vehicle are not passengers and therefore the vehicles cannot be categorised as 'contract carriages' has to be summarily rejected. I have already set out the definition of the word 'passenger' as found under the Motor Vehicles Rules. If the employees of the Company, when travelling in the vehicles, were on duty, there may be scime substance in the contention. But the fact is otherwise. The employees are brought by Company's vehicles so that they may join duty punctually and they are carried back to the nearest places of their residence only after their working hours. They are, therefore, not on duty when they travel. That being the position, i fail to see why they shall not be regarded as passengers. ( 8 ) THE next question is, whether the employees of the Company are carried for hire or reward under a contract. Several authorities were refer red to by Counsel for the petitioners to explain the meaning of the phrase 'to ply for hire', used in the English as well as in the Indian enactments. The meaning and scope of the said phrase occurring in the Metropolitan public Carriage Act, 1869 came up for consideration in Sales v. Lake, (1922) 1 KB. 553. Centain persons arranged to run a charabanc from London to Brighton, all seats being booked and tickets paid for before hand and no other passengers being accepted. The charabanc started from Grosvenor Gardens with their tickets, and the question was whether it was a stage carriage plying for hire at that place. The question was answered in the negative, Lord trevethin, CJ. , expressing the view that a carriage could not accurately be said to, ply for hire, unless two, conditions were satisfied. The charabanc started from Grosvenor Gardens with their tickets, and the question was whether it was a stage carriage plying for hire at that place. The question was answered in the negative, Lord trevethin, CJ. , expressing the view that a carriage could not accurately be said to, ply for hire, unless two, conditions were satisfied. " (11) There must be a soliciting or waiting to secure passengers by the driver or other person in control without any previous contract with them, and (2) The owner or person in control who is engaged in or authorises the solicting or waiting must be in possession of 3 carriage for which he is solicting or waiting to obtain passengers. "mr, Justice Avory delivered himself to the same effect. He said at p. 562: "plying for hire' means soliciting customers without previous contract," this case is an authority for the, view that 'plying for hire' is an act which results in the vehicle being hired and not an act consequential upon the hiring and it applies more accurately to a stage carriage and not for contract carriage. In Leonard v. Western Services Ltd. , (1927) 1 KB. 702, a lady purchased a return ticket by motor omnibus from Newport in Wales to Risca, travelling to risca by one of the omnibuses of 'he Company and returning bv another. The omunibuses were licensed to ply for hire in Newport but were not so licensed in Risca. The question was whether the return omnibus, in accepting the lady as a passenger on the strength of her return ticket was plying" for hire in Risca. This point was found aga,inst by Lord Hewart, CJ. , observing :"there is no occasion for soliciting passengers within the district (Risca ). It is not open to the omnibus driver by diligence or by skill to attract to his employers, the customers of other employers. There is, therefore, no plying for hire in the district, the hiring having already been done. "and Salter, J. , said :" Without attempting any exhaustive definition of the expression, i think in order to constitute 'plying for hire' within the, meaning of the Acts there must be a general invitation by the person in charge of the vehicle to the members of the public to make contracts with him for carriage in the vehicle. "and Salter, J. , said :" Without attempting any exhaustive definition of the expression, i think in order to constitute 'plying for hire' within the, meaning of the Acts there must be a general invitation by the person in charge of the vehicle to the members of the public to make contracts with him for carriage in the vehicle. "the principles stated in the above two cases were followed by a Division bench of the Madras High Court in Local Fund overseer, Mayavaram v. Pakkirisami Thevan, AIR. 1928 Mad. 168-106 Ind. Cas. 446 where the complaint against an accused was that he committed an offence of plying a motor car for hire in one of the roads at Tanjore without obtaining licence from the President, Dist. Board, tanjore. The vehicle was in fact hired at Mayayaram within the Municipal limits and it traversed beyond the Municipal limits and on to the Tanjore dist. Board road. The Court negatived the contention that a vehicle plies for hire on a public road if it is made use of as a hired vehicle on that road. The Court further observed that a plying of a motor vehicle for hire means the act of waiting for soliciting customers, and that therefore so soon as any person has hired it, at Mayavaram, the act of plying for hire is complete and no permission was required from the President of the tanjore Dist. Bopxd for using the Dist. Board, Road a,t Tanjore. The Court took the view that the term 'ply for hire" must have the same signification in India, as it has had in England. Similar view was expressed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High court in Sardul Singh, v. Emperor, AIR. 1929 Lah. 422 where Jai Lal, J. observed :"'to ply for hire' means to exhibit a vehicle in such a way as to invite those who may desire to do so to hire, it or to travel in it on payment of the usual fares and also to offer its use on payment to, any member of the public thereby any soliciting custom. "it thus appears, that the expression 'to ply for hire' ordinarily means, hold out the vehicle for public in such a way as to invite those who may desire to nirq it on payment of usual fares or hire charges. "it thus appears, that the expression 'to ply for hire' ordinarily means, hold out the vehicle for public in such a way as to invite those who may desire to nirq it on payment of usual fares or hire charges. ( 9 ) COMING nearer home, I find two unreported decisions on which counsel for the petitioners placed strong reliance,. The first is of the, High court of Andhra Pradesh in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Secy, Home dept, WP. 1585/70 dt. 14-9-71 (AP. ). The facts of the said case are, similar to the one before me hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. of Hyderabad Unit was thei petitioner therein. The vehicles used by the petitioner's employees on payment of certain charges were held to be contract carriages by Licensing Authority , Hyderabad, as well as the Appellate Authority-Transport, Commr. But Obul reddy, J. expressed otherwise by observing thus :"it is difficult to, hold that an employee of the, petitioner will come within the meaning of a 'passenger' travelling in a, public service vehicle. No member of the public can be denied of the right of travelling in a public service vehicle provided so Jong as the seating capacity prescribed in the conditions of permit is not filled up. Any passenger or group of passengers would be entitled to take on contract a public service Vehicle on payment of some, fixed hire or for reward. The vehicles in question are npt availably to the public either for hire, of for reward. They are used only to provide amenities to the employees of the petitioner's company though a nominal sum is changed froni every employee. The fact that a nominal sum is collected from some of the employees will not make the vehicle a, public series vehicle so as to come within the meaning of a, 'contract Carriage'. It cannot be said that what is charged by the petitioner's company amounts to payments of hire to the petitioner. Employees of the petitioner do not come within the meaning of passengers, for they have no right as such to insist upon being carried in the vehicles of the petitioner. There is no contract between the petitioner and its employees. . . . . . . Further, the element of making profits totally is absent in this case. Employees of the petitioner do not come within the meaning of passengers, for they have no right as such to insist upon being carried in the vehicles of the petitioner. There is no contract between the petitioner and its employees. . . . . . . Further, the element of making profits totally is absent in this case. The sum collected and charged is nominal and it does nqt even cover the propelling expenses incurred by the Company. I am, therefore, unable to, hold that the six motor vehicles of the petitioner's company are contract carriages within the meaning of S. 2 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. "with great respect, I am unable to agree with the above view. I have already held that the employees while travelling in the Company's vehicles, shall be, regarded as passengers as they are not on duty. The adequacy of hire, in my view, is not a test for determining whether the passengers are carried for hire, or reward. Even the element of earning profit need not be present while carrying passengers for hire. When once the charges are accepted as a consideration for providing transport facilities and if those charges are legally recoverable it would be difficult to hold that there is no contract for the use of the vehicles between the Management of the company and its employees. I will again advert to these, maters a litlle later. Now I consider the decision of the Bombay High Court in premier automobiles Ltd. v. G. A. Sharma, Commr. , Bombay Divn. , MP. 230/68 Bom. dt. 16/17-10-1969, The petitioner therein the Premier Automobiles Ltd. ,was operating several motor vehicles for conveying their employees working in Kurla, Factory from the nearest Rly. Station to the,said Factory. Those vehicles were covered by the private service vehicle permits wherein the employees of the Factory were carried against a nominal payment which did not even compensation the management for the fuel consumed. It may be relevant to state that the private service vehicle was referred and defined only under the Bombay motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, and not under the Mqtor Vehicles Act. It may be relevant to state that the private service vehicle was referred and defined only under the Bombay motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, and not under the Mqtor Vehicles Act. It means 'any omnibus constructed or adapted to carry more than 9 persons excluding the driver, and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with the owner's trade or business, or otherwise than for hire or reward. The transport Officer assessed the passenger tax on the vehicles and called upon the Management to pay the same, treating the said vehicles as contract , carriages and no,t as private service vehicles. The sole basis for the said assessment was that the Management was collecting some transport charges from its employees who travel in the buses The question arose wheher the vehicles which were ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner for or in connection with his trade or business, carrying employees on nominal charges, would be public service vehicles or private service vehicles. Madon, J. while quashing thei impugned assessment and demand of passenger tape, directed the authorities to consider the dominant object or motive of the Management in transporting passengers, whether it was for hire or reward, and whether there was the existence of a profit motive in operating the vehicles. These observations, in my view, cannot be construed as having laid down the law governing the contract carriages as contended for the petitioners. The said observations were necessitated in view of the purpose for which the private service vehicles were required to be made use of by the owner thereof. The private service vehicles were required to, be operated not for hire or reward, but to carry persons for or in connection with the trade or business of the owner of' the vehicles. The said decision, therefore, cannpt be of much assistance to the petitioners before me. ( 10 ) THIS takes me back to the question whether the hire or reward for contract carriage for carrying passengers should be adequate and sufficient to recompense the costs of maintenance and operation of the vehicles. In my view, the adequacy of the hire or reward cannot bo a guiding factor to determine the categorisation of any vehicle. ( 10 ) THIS takes me back to the question whether the hire or reward for contract carriage for carrying passengers should be adequate and sufficient to recompense the costs of maintenance and operation of the vehicles. In my view, the adequacy of the hire or reward cannot bo a guiding factor to determine the categorisation of any vehicle. The term 'ply for hire' or 'carrying passengers for hire or reward' is not denned either under the motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Though the dictionary meaning of the; word 'reward' means 'recompense for services rendered', i find no justification to hold when it refers to, a contract carriage, that the hire or reward payable by the passengers should always be adequate to meet the operational costs. It is always open to the owner of a, mo. tor vehicle to, carry passengers under a contract on any charges which he thinks it to be reasonable, and not necessarily on the quid pro quo basis. ( 11 ) REFERENCE was made to Mccarthy v. British Oak Insc. Co. Ltd. , (1938) 3 AIIER. 1 in support of the contention that there shall be a stipulated quid pro quo in order to constitute a real hiring of a vehicle. In that case there was no hiring of the vehicle in question. Some persons who took the car agreed to pay the costs of the petrol and oil and no hiring charge was paid as such. Similar was the case in Kadu Mohideen v. Emperor, AIR. 1935 Mad 577 where the owner of a lorry was paid the costs of the petrol and no amount was paid as hiring charge by a customer. These two decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts, and any observation made therein, cannot be relied upon as a proposition of law, to the effect that unless the Company demands payment of compensation or adequate hiring charges from its employees, the vehicles shall not be treated as contract carriages. Reliance was then placed OR the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Minochar Pestonji Patel v. A. M. Amin, 1968 Guj. L. R. 171 That was a case where the proprietor of a, hotel ajloiwed his car for the carriage of passengers from the railway Station to the hotel and back for the purpose of attracting customers. Reliance was then placed OR the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Minochar Pestonji Patel v. A. M. Amin, 1968 Guj. L. R. 171 That was a case where the proprietor of a, hotel ajloiwed his car for the carriage of passengers from the railway Station to the hotel and back for the purpose of attracting customers. No extra charge was taken from the customers for the facility of providing transport. On these facts, the Gujarat High Court negatived the contention that the car was' used for carrying passengers for hire or reward. The said decision is also of no assistance to the petitioners' case. ( 12 ) THE support for my view, could be derived from the definition of 'contract carriage'. The following particulars are noticed in the said definition. 'contract carriage' is a motor vehicle (i) which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract; (ii) the contract may be expressed or implied but it should be for the use of the vehicle as a whole at an agreed rate or for a fixed sum; (iii) the rate of fixed sum is payable either on a time basis for which the vehicle would be under use with or without any reference to any particular route or distance, or specifically with reference to any distance from one point to another; and (iv) the vehicle shall not pick up or set down passengers on route, who are not included in the contract. From these provisions, it is clear that it is open to the passengers and the owner of a vehicle to come to any understanding on the question of hire charges. They may have any agreed rate or a fixed sum. The rate may be adequate or inadequate. The reward may not be sufficient to meet the costs of the, operation. It may not turn out to be a profitable profession. I can think of very many examples where the hire charges recovered, is in adequate for various reasons. The owner may offer his vehicle on nominal charges, if he is to derive any other benefit by such carriage of passengers. It may not turn out to be a profitable profession. I can think of very many examples where the hire charges recovered, is in adequate for various reasons. The owner may offer his vehicle on nominal charges, if he is to derive any other benefit by such carriage of passengers. It is not uncommon to find in these days of competition, an owner of a contract carriage operating his vehicle on a nominal change with an evil design to exterminate his rival operations; or an operator who is charitably disposed towards the public, offering his contract carriage to carry pilgrims to religious places at a nominal sum, or a Tourist Corporation as an incentive, to foreign tourists providing them contract carriage on concessional hire charges. These carriages cannot cease to be contract carriages merely on the ground the hire recovered from the passengers is not adequate. There is, therefore, no, warrant for the supposition that the hire or reward should always be adequate in cash to compensate the costs of maintenance and operation of the contract carriages; nor there is any justification to hold that the operation of the vehicles should be motivated by any profit. ( 13 ) THE argument that the vehicles of the Company are not open to the public in general and therefore, they cannot be said to be plying for hire is not tenable. The vehicles are always under contracts to transport the employees of the Company. When there are such contracts, the Company is under no obligation to ho,ld out the vehicles to the general public not any member of the public can assert, his right to hire such vehicles. It is also the, case of the Company that the existing vehicles are not sufficient to cater to the needs of all its employees. That was perhaps the reason why the Company by its own voluntary act has excluded the general public from hiring the vehicles. The contention that there is no contract between the Company and its employees to transport the latter cannot be accepted. The contract need not be express. It may be implied and inferred by the mere act of entering the vehicle, provided there is a legally binding obligation to carry the employees. The contention that there is no contract between the Company and its employees to transport the latter cannot be accepted. The contract need not be express. It may be implied and inferred by the mere act of entering the vehicle, provided there is a legally binding obligation to carry the employees. In these cases, it is not disputed that the Company has extended the services oi' the vehicles to its employees who have undertaken to pay the sum fixed as charges for transport. This amounts to a contract as between the Company and its employees. This contract is to, transport them from the places nearest to their residence, to the Company's factory premises, and to take them back after the, working hours. In other words, it is a, contract to use the vehicles from one point to another and the Company's vehicles admittedly do not stop to pick up or set down any passenger who has not been agreed to be carried by the Management of the company. Thus all the requirements of the 'contract carriage' are completely satisfied in the operation of the Company's vehicles. ( 14 ) THIS takers me on to the second contion urged for the petitioner in WP. 542 of 1972. It was urged that the petitioner shall'be deemed to, have been granted the approval for alteration of its contract carriages into omnibuses. The folowing facts are necessary to appreciate the contention: The petitioner herein made an application on 25 26-5-1970 to the Commr. for transport for conversion of their contract carriages into omnibuses. In the application, it was stated that the vehicles are really not contract carriages, but are merely omnibuses operated with the intention to provide transport facilities to its own employees and the members of their family at nominal rates in the interest of the business of the Company. On 27th june 1970 the Commissioner wrote to the Divisional Secretary of the, petitioner starting thus :"so long as these vehicles are contract carriages, the tax already assessed and communicated to you shall have to be credited. These vehicles were declared to be contract carriages in Form No. 14 and all are covered by contract carriage permits. It is left to you to take up the matter with the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, to get the class of vehicles altered as omnibus by surrendering permits etc. These vehicles were declared to be contract carriages in Form No. 14 and all are covered by contract carriage permits. It is left to you to take up the matter with the Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore, to get the class of vehicles altered as omnibus by surrendering permits etc. , and thereafter apply for proportionate reduction of tax. "thereupon, the petitioner approached the RTO for the same relief. The transport Officer by his letter dt, 13-7-1970 rejected the request of the petitioner stating that as nominal charges arc levied on the employees for transporting them from different parts of the City end back, the conversion prayed for would not be permissible. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Commr. for Transport. The Commr. observed that the application of the petitioner was duly received in the office of the registering authority who has not rejected it within the time, allowed by law and further he said: "under such circumstances, it has got to be deemed that the proposed alteration has been approved b0079 the registering authority as per proviso to S. 32 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act". He also added:"it should however be remembered that even if this alteration is deemed to have been approved, the vehicles would once again automatically stand re-altered as contract callages, since the contract carriage permits obtained for the vehicles are valid. Thus the deeming provision is of no avail to the petitioner since it would be a mere exercise in futility". ( 15 ) IT was urged for the petitioner that it is entitled to the benefit of the Proviso to S 32 (2) and the Commissioner was in error in not giving effect to it. On the contrary, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that S. 32 is npt applicable to the case on hand. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out the relevant portion of Sec. 32. "32 Alteration m motor vehicle.- * * *" if S. 32 is applicable to the c^see of the petitioner there is no doubt that the Commr. was in error in not giving Affect to the proviso to sub-sec. (2 ). But it seems to ma that the said section is wholly inapplicable to the petitioner's case. "32 Alteration m motor vehicle.- * * *" if S. 32 is applicable to the c^see of the petitioner there is no doubt that the Commr. was in error in not giving Affect to the proviso to sub-sec. (2 ). But it seems to ma that the said section is wholly inapplicable to the petitioner's case. The alteration contemplated in S 32 appears to be the structural alteration of the vehicle inclusive of change in its unladen weight and the replacement of the engine. This is evident by the proviso to Cl. (b) of sub-sec. (1), and sub-sec. (3) of S. 32. When the section refers to. alteration of a motor vehicle, it means not a mere change in the use of the vehicle unless the proposed change involves a corresponding alteration in the vehicle itself. ( 16 ) APART from that on the facts found, S 32 has no application to this case The particulars mentioned in the registration certificate of the petitioner's vehicles are not inaccurate. The registration certificate of the vehicle gives a detailed description oi the vehicle, like the class of vehicle, maker's name, type of body, year of manufacture, registered laden weight etc. As against the class of vehicle, it is mentioned in the registration certificate of the petitioner's vehicle that it is a contract carriage. I have already rejected the contention for the petitioner that its vehicles are omnibuses. It is only where the owner of a vehicle finds that the particulars mentioned in the registration certificate are no longer accurate, he may make an application under S-32, for permission for suitable alteration of the vehicle. So long as the particulars mentioned therein remain accurate, the owner has no right to invoke the provisions of Sec. 32. The commr. in the instant case has not approached the question on this aspect of the matter and I agree with learned Govt. Advocate that the Commr. was in error in construing the. provisions of Section 32. ( 17 ) IN any view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the orders impugned in these petitions. These petitions, therefore, fail and are dismissed. The petitioners shall pay the costs of the respondents. Advocate's fee Rs. 250 in each of the petitions. --- *** --- .