RAJASEKHARA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) MOTOR Vehicle bearing registration No. MNP 6639 was registered in the name of one S. A. Pasha as a tourist vehicle by the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Manipur with a seating capacity of 34+1. The petitioner purchased the said vehicle on 5-4-1984. Change of address of the registered owner was effected by the R. T. O. Bangalore under Section 30 of the Act with effect from 20-8-1983, and the seating capacity was also altered from 34+1 to 35+2. After the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner the transfer was recorded in the Registration Certificate as per order dated 5-4-1984 made by the R. T. O. Bangalore West. By order dated 23-8-1983 the R. T. O. Bangalore permitted alteration of the seating capacity from 35+2 to 34+1 in accordance with the Government Notification dated 5-4-1976 since it was covered by an All India Tourist permit. The alteration was permitted with the following condition: "exempted from the provisions of Rule 216 of K. M. V. Rules so long as the vehicle is covered with All India Tourist Omni Bus permit. " it is not in dispute that the vehicle was operated as an All India Tourist Omni Bus only for a short period, thereafter on the strength of a temporary permit issued by virtue of an order made by the Supreme Court and on the expiry of the temporary permit ceased to be an All India tourist Omni Bus. On 30-6-1985, the petitioner surrendered the documents of the vehicle in question before the respondent claiming exemption from payment of tax from 1-7-1985. On 8-10-1985, the petitioner requested for release of the documents after the period of non-user was over, to use the vehicle on special permits. To this request the R. T. O. replied as per Annexure-C dated 15-10-1985. The said reply styled as a notice issued by the R. T. O. reads thus: "mnp 6639 Tourist Vehicle owned by Sri, G. Zia-Ur-Rahaman S/o Sr. To this request the R. T. O. replied as per Annexure-C dated 15-10-1985. The said reply styled as a notice issued by the R. T. O. reads thus: "mnp 6639 Tourist Vehicle owned by Sri, G. Zia-Ur-Rahaman S/o Sr. Abdul Gaffar, No. 7, general Travels, Parkalmutt Building, Tank Bund Road, Bangalore-9 was allowed to be operated with a seating capacity of 34+1 in all duly exempting from the operation of Rule 216 of KMV rules 1963 vide Government Notification No. HD 131 TMA 77 dated 29-7-1977 since complied with Government Notification No. HD 24 TMR 76 dated 5-11-1976 with and specific condition that the exemption from Rule 216 of KMV Rules 1963 is valid as long as the vehicle is covered by All India Tourist Omni Bus permit. As the vehicle is no longer covered with All India Tourist Omni Bus permit, as per his declaration the exemption granted from the operation of Rule 216 of K. M. V. Rules has become ineffective. Hence, the applicant is hereby requested to provide seats in proportion to the wheel base of the vehicle. e. , 210 and to produce the same before the undersigned for necessary action. " This notice is challenged in this Writ Petition by the petitioner. ( 2 ) . C. N. Achar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court in SANJEEVAIAH v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ILR1985 kar 4088 submitted that the R. T. O. was bound by the decision of this Court and application of rule 218 to the petitioner's case on the strength of the condition which had been imposed by the r. T. O. while permitting alteration is without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) HE relies on the observations contained in paras 8 and 10 in Sanjeevalah's case1 wherein it is categorically held that in respect of the motor vehicles registered outside the State of Karnataka, the R. T. Os. functioning within the State of Karnataka have no power to insist on compliance with Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules. ( 4 ) SRI C. N. Achar has cited several Writ Petitions in which similar contentions had been raised and this Court, in the orders made therein, has consistently held that Rule 216 of the Karnataka motor Vehicles Rules 1963 cannot be applied to public service vehicles registered out side the state of Karnataka. ( 4 ) SRI C. N. Achar has cited several Writ Petitions in which similar contentions had been raised and this Court, in the orders made therein, has consistently held that Rule 216 of the Karnataka motor Vehicles Rules 1963 cannot be applied to public service vehicles registered out side the state of Karnataka. The Writ Petitions referred to by Sri Achar are: i) A NEELAKANTA SETTY v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, CHITRADURGA w. P. No. 12637/77 DD 22-8-1983; ii) MUNIR AHAMAD v. THE ASST. REGIONAL TRANS-PORT OFFICER, KOLAR GOLD fields, KOLAR DISTRICT WP No. 8278/85 DD 20-6-1986; iii) K. G. HANUMANTHARAJU v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, BANGALORE north, YESWANTHAPUR, BANGALORE-22 WP No. 3089/87 DD 10-3-1987, iv) K. RAJEEVI v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, SHIMOGA REGION, shimoga WP No. 4079/87 DD 25-3-1987, v) H. T. JAGANNATH v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, TUMKUR REGION, tumkur WP No. 13013/87 DD 8-9-1987; ( 5 ) SRI Dattu opposing the Writ Petition, has vehemently argued that the alteration of the seating capacity was permitted on 23-3-1983 by the R. T. O. since the vehicle was covered by an All india Tourist Omni bus permit at that time. He also draws my attention to the endorsement of the rto at page 12 of the Registration Certificate wherein this condition was imposed. ( 6 ) IT is also argued by Sri Dattu that the decision of this Court in Sanjeevaiah's case cannot be made applicable to a case like the present one in which the alteration was permitted subject to the specific condition stated therein. Sri Dattu, in this context has referred to a decision rendered by K. A. Swami, J in RAOOF v. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ILR1986 KAR 1502 in support of his contention. ( 7 ) THE decision in Raoof's case was rendered in respect of a motor vehicle registered as a tourist omni bus in the State of Karnataka with a specific condition imposed that the vehicle was exempted from operation of Rule 216 as long as it was covered by an All India Tourist permit, it was therefore held that Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not be relied upon by the petitioner and Rule 216 was rightly applied. Two other decisions relied upon by the learned Government Pleader are; i) NOORULLA SHARIFF v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, KOLAR WP No. 105/85 DD 12-2-1985; ii) N. MUDDAPPA v. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, BANGALOR, NORTH WP no. 13648/87 DD 5-10-1987, ( 8 ) I have carefully considered the ratio of these decisions. In Noorulla Sheriff's case' His lordship (KAS J) held, that the petitioner should not be permitted to rely on the decision in sanjeevaiah's case' in support of his contention made against the applicability of Rule 216. It was observed in the course of the order that the registered owner took the vehicle to Tamil Nadu for a week with a deliberate intention to get the seating capacity reduced. It was therefore held on facts, that the intention of the registered owner was to defeat the law, namely Rule 216 of the karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules and therefore the Writ Petition was dismissed. ( 9 ) IN Muddappa's case, the same learned Justice (KAS J) was dealing with the case of an omni bus whose owner sought permission to convert it as a stage carriage. This Court held that the endorsement issued by the Regional Transport Officer insisting on a minimum seating capacity of 48+2 as a stage carriage was valid in law. The said endorsement was upheld in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in K. G. JAGAN-NATH's CASE AIR1973 sc 2165 , (1973 )1 SCC736 , [1973 ]3 SCR770 in which power of the State to prescribe minimum number of passengers that should be carried in a stage carriage, was upheld. ( 10 ) THE question that therefore arises in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader on the facts of the present case and which still remains to be decided in the light of the divergent views taken by this Court in the cases referred to above is, whether the ratio of the decision in Sanjeevaiah's case applies notwithstanding the imposition of a specific condition that exemption was permitted by the Regional Transport Officer as long as the vehicle was covered by an All India Tourist Omni bus permit? ( 11 ) HAVING carefully perused the two sets of orders referred to earlier, no doubt KAS J has taken a consistent view in the cases referred to earlier that Rule 216 can be made applicable to the vehicles registered out side the State, if ft is found that the registered owners have made an attempt to defeat the Rule and take the vehicle out side the State with a deliberate intention to get the seating capacity reduced. ( 12 ) BUT it is brought to my notice by Sri C. N. Achar that His Lordship (KAS J) has, in another batch of Writ Petitions H. T. Jagannath v. The Regional Transport Officer, Tumkur Region, tumkur has expressed a view similar to first batch of cases in Muneer Ahamad and other connected cases. It is pointed out that the Writ Petitions were allowed by his Lordship and the contention of the petitioners about the non-applicability of Rule 216 to the vehicles registered out side the State, was upheld. ( 13 ) HIS Lordship in the course, of the common order disposing of the said Writ Petitions has pointed out the anamoly brought about by each State having different Rules framed under section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act and has further observed that it is for the various State governments to tackle this situation in order to see that uniform Rules are framed by all the State under Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 14 ) I had also occasion to point out the very same anamoly in Muneer Ahamad v. The Assistant regional Transport Officer, Kolar Gold Fields and observed that Section 32 of the Motor vehicles Act conferred powers on the Regional Transport Officers of States to approve alteration of the seating capacity and such approval cannot be undone by another State. ( 15 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the present Writ Petition. The stand of the Government should be rejected as untenable and is contrary to the decision of this Court in Sanjeevalah's case'. The decision of the Division Bench in Sanjeevaiah's easel has held the field for over a decade and is the declared Law so far as this court is concerned and the State is bound by the said decision. The stand of the Government should be rejected as untenable and is contrary to the decision of this Court in Sanjeevalah's case'. The decision of the Division Bench in Sanjeevaiah's easel has held the field for over a decade and is the declared Law so far as this court is concerned and the State is bound by the said decision. It is not the case of the department that the said decision is distinguished in any subsequent case. It also cannot be disputed by the State that this Court has, in innumerable cases, applied the ratio of Sanjeevaiah's case and granted relief to the petitioners whose vehicles were registered out side the State and had approached this Court against the attempt made by the State to apply Rule 216. ( 16 ) IT is necessary to observe that the order made in the case of M. Muddappa v. The Regional transport Officer, Bangalore North which was strongly relied upon by the learned High Court government Pleader was a case of an Omni Bus and not a public service vehicle and therefore the said decision does not help the Department. ( 17 ) IN view of what is stated above. It is a vain and futlie attempt on the part of the Government pleader to draw any distinction what so ever in placing reliance on Muddappa's case which has no relevance to the facts of the present case and resist the Writ Petition on untenable grounds. ( 18 ) IN the result the Writ Petition should succeed and it is ordered accordingly and the notice dated 15-10-1985 marked as Annexure-C is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to costs of rs. 500-00.