( 1 ) ON 19-8-1980 the petitioner made an application under S. 63 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for grant of a special permit before the Regional transport Officer, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the RTO) for carrying passengers on hire or reward in his motor Vehicle bearing No. MED 4503 from 22-8-1980 to 31-8-1980. On the said application made by the petitioner the RTO by his endorsement No. SPB/med 45041 80-81 (Annexure-B) apparently influenced by the form of the permit prescribed by the Karnataka motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) directed the petitioner to furnish the names and addresses of the passengers travelling in the vehicle as per R. 111 (5) of the Rules as a condition precedent to consider that application. ( 2 ) ON 9th Sept. 1980 the petitioner approached this Court under Art, 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the aforesaid order made by the RTO and for striking down column no. 9 of form No. 53 P. Co. S. P. A. appended to the Rules with an appropriate prayer for interim directions. On 11-9-1980 this Court while issuing Court rule nisi in the case, directed the rto not to insist upon the list of passengers proposed to be carried in the vehicle. In compliance with the interim order made by this Court, the RTO has issued a special permit to the petitioner, without insisting on the production of a list of passengers, which has also expired. In this view, it is not necessary for this Court to examine the validity of the impugned endorsement issued by the RTO and pronounce on its validity. Hence, the relief sought by the petitioner against the impugned order is rejected as having become unnecessary. ( 3 ) SRI P. R. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that column No. 9 of form. No. 53 appended to the Rules is not in conformity with Section 63 (6) of the Act. and R. 111 of the Rules as amended by Government and is, therefore, liable to be struck down. In support of his contention Sr. Ramesh strongly relies on the ruling rendered by Malimath, J. in R. A. Jayaram v. State of Mysore ( (1974) 1 Kant LJ 158) AIR 1974 Kant 93 affirmed in W. A. No. 163/ 1973 filed by the State. In support of his contention Sr. Ramesh strongly relies on the ruling rendered by Malimath, J. in R. A. Jayaram v. State of Mysore ( (1974) 1 Kant LJ 158) AIR 1974 Kant 93 affirmed in W. A. No. 163/ 1973 filed by the State. ( 4 ) SMT. M. R. Vanaja, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, urged that column No. 9 of the permit was valid. ( 5 ) AN examination of the form of the permit issued under S, 63 (6) of the Act shows that the same was prescribed with the various columns found therein, having regard to the intendment and object of. R. 111 as originally framed by Government. In Jayaram's case, this Court struck down a portion of sub-rule (5) of R, Ill of the Rules as being violative of Art. 19 (1) (g) of the constitution, accepting the submission maand for the State that the offending portion. of that, rule was severable. ( 6 ) IN conformity with the ruling' of this Court in Jayaram's case, Government by its Notification no. HD 57 TMR 16. dated 5-3-1977 has suitably amended R. 111 of the Rules. But, while amending the said rule, Government has lost sight of the necessity to amend the form of the permit Form No. 53, agreeably with the ruling of this Court and the amendments made by it. ( 7 ) AN examination of R. Ill after its amendment by Government in Notification dated 5-3-1977 shows that the reasoning that commended to this Court has been accepted by Government and sub-rule (5) has been brought in conformity with the, enunciation made by this Court in jayaram's case. When Government accepting the enunciation made in Jayaram's case amended r. 111 of the Rules, on the same parity of reasoning, it should have also amended Form No. 53 earlier prescribed. But alas! that has not been done. Be that as it may, column No. 9 of Form No. 53 of the permit suffers from the same vice on which this Court struck down sub-rule (5) of R. 1ll of the Rules and is, therefore, liable to be struck down. But for the very reasons found in jayaram's case column No. 9 in Form) No. 53 can be struck down without striking down the entire form of the permit. But for the very reasons found in jayaram's case column No. 9 in Form) No. 53 can be struck down without striking down the entire form of the permit. ( 8 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I strike down only column No. 9 of Form No. 53 P. Co. S. P. A. appended to the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. ( 9 ) RULE issued is made absolute. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. ( 10 ) RULE made absolute