SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AT the stage of preliminary hearing, learned Government Pleader was directed to take notice for the respondent and to receive instructions. Accordingly he has secured instructions. As the petition can be disposed of on a short point, it is heard for final disposal. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the permission to alter the vehicle must be deemed to have been granted under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Motor Vehicles act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and to quash the endorsement dated 24-2-89 bearing No. RTO. MYS. CTM- 9927/88-89 at annexure - D, passed by the R. T. O. and the registering Authority, Mysore. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is a registered owner of the tourist vehicle bearing registration No. CTM-9927 with the seating capacity of 29 + 1. She made an application on 4-2-89 under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the act - before the respondent seeking permission to alter the seating capacity of the vehicle from 29 + 1 to 6 + 1 to use it as a luxury taxi cab. The respondent on the same date sent a communication to the petitioner stating that her application is being processed and she should not alter the seating capacity of the vehicle without the specific orders from the respondent. Thereafter the petitioner addressed another communication on 21-2-89 stating that as no communication has been sent to her either approving the proposed alteration or rejecting the same, the proposed alteration of the seating capacity of the vehicle in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the act must be deemed to have been granted. On receipt of the letter dated 21-2-89, the respondent has sent the impugned endorsement dated 24-2-89 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Act, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules') the permission sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, therefore it is rejected. ( 4 ) THE contention of Sri S. V. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that no communication for rejecting the proposed alteration of the seating capacity of the vehicle was received by the petitioner within seven days from the date of the submission of the application, therefore as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to alter the seating capacity of the vehicle after due notice to the registering authority in case the registering authority does not intimate its decision rejecting the proposed alteration of the seating capacity of the vehicle within seven days, as in such a case the approval of the authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been granted. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in KM. Shankarappa v Vie City of bangalore Municipal Corporation, W. P. No. 5243 of 1969, reported in 1972, Mys. LJ. short notes of Recent Decisions, Item No. 300, and Habeeb khandasari Industries v Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Another, (1987 (1) Kar. LJ. page 57) and Abdul Jabbar khan v Regional Transport Officer, Mysore, (1988 (1) Kar. LJ. page 2592 ). ( 5 ) ON the contrary it is contended on behalf of the respondent, that the vehicle in question is admittedly a tourist vehicle and it falls within the definition of 'public service vehicle'; therefore, the seating capacity of the vehicle has to conform to Rule 216 of the rules which has been held valid by the supreme Court in State of Mysore and another v K. G. Jagannath, (A. I. R. 1973, supreme Court 2165 ). Therefore, it is submitted that as the wheel base of the vehicle falls under the 4th category mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules, in law it is impermissible to reduce the seating capacity of the vehicle from 29 + 1 to 6 + 1. Therefore, the permission sought for by the petitioner itself is illegal and impermissible. The fact that no intimation is sent to the petitioner either approving the alteration sought for or rejecting it within a period of 7 days as provided under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Act is of no avail to the petitioner because the law does not approve or encourage an illegal act. The fact that no intimation is sent to the petitioner either approving the alteration sought for or rejecting it within a period of 7 days as provided under the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Act is of no avail to the petitioner because the law does not approve or encourage an illegal act. Deeming provision would come into operation only if what is sought for is permissible in law and not otherwise, that no such act which is impermissible in law can be deemed to have been granted under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. ( 6 ) THE facts necessary for deciding this contention, as already stated, are not in dispute. The vehicle in question is a tourist vehicle. Section 2 (29a) of the Act defines the expression "tourist Vehicle". It means a contract carriage constructed or adapted and equipped and maintained in accordance with such specifications as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf. As per sub-section (25) of Section 2 of the Act the expression "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Thus the vehicle in question being a tourist vehicle, is a contract carriage and a contract carriage is a public service vehicle, because it is used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. In addition to this, the definition of the expression "public service vehicle" specifically includes within its meaning a 'contract carriage' also. ( 7 ) RULE 216 of the Rules reads thus:- " 216. Limit of seating capacity:- (1) subject to the provisions of Rule 214 regarding seating accommodation, the number of passengers excluding the driver and conductor that a Public service Vehicle other than a Motor cab, may be permitted to carry, shall not exceed the number determined by dividing by 59 Kilograms the difference in Kilograms between the registered laden weight less 109 kilograms and the unladen weight of the vehicle. (2) The minimum seating capacity of a public Service vehicle shall be directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. (2) The minimum seating capacity of a public Service vehicle shall be directly proportionate to the wheel base of the vehicle. In all Public Service vehicles other than motor cabs the minimum number of seats (including the two seats for driver and conductor) to be provided shall be as specified in column (2) of the Table below: provided that the operator may increase the capacity consistent with the other rules relating to seating capacity and with due regard to the type of the chassis on which the body is fitted:- TABLE Wheel base No. of seats (Minimum) seating capacity (1) (2) 254 to 293 c. m. 16 294 to 305 c. m. 20 306 to 343 c. m. 25 344 to 407 c. m. 30 408 to 432 c. m. 35 433 to 496 c. m. 45 497 to 534 c. m. 50 Above 535 c. m. 55 (3) Nothing in sub-rule (2) shall apply to:- (i) stage carriages proposed to be operated exclusively in towns and cities and within a radius of 25 K. M. from the limits of such towns and cities; and (ii) stage carriages registered prior to the coming into force of the Karnataka motor Vehicles (V Amendment) rules, 1969; provided that when the body of a stage carriage specified in item (ii) is reconstructed, the seats shall be so arranged as to face the front and maximum number of seats to the satisfaction of the Registering authority, shall be provided". From the aforesaid rule, it is clear, that it applies to a public service vehicle also. In that event, the seating capacity of the public service vehicle shall have to be in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, it is not in dispute that wheel base of the vehicle in question falls within the 4th category, of the table provided in sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the rules. Thus the wheel base of the vehicle in question is in between 344 to 407' c. m. In such a case, the seating capacity of the vehicle should be 30. Accordingly, the present seating capacity of the vehicle is 29 + 1. Thus the wheel base of the vehicle in question is in between 344 to 407' c. m. In such a case, the seating capacity of the vehicle should be 30. Accordingly, the present seating capacity of the vehicle is 29 + 1. Therefore, it is clear from Rule 216 of the Rules read with sub-sections (29-A) and (25) of Section 2 of the Act, a vehicle answering the description of a public service vehicle as defined in the Act, must conform to the seating capacity as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules. The validity of this rule has been upheld by the supreme Court in State of Mysore and another v K. G. Jagannath, (AIR 1973 supreme Court 2165 ). Thus, it is clear that the permission for alteration of the seating capacity of the vehicle in question as sought for by the petitioner cannot in law be granted. Consequently, it follows that what the petitioner wants to achieve with the aid of the deeming provision is what is impermissible in law. This cannot be allowed. The object of a deeming provision is not to encourage an illegality or to validate an illegal act. If the interpretation tried to be placed by the petitioner on the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act is accepted, it will encourage illegality or validate an illegal act on the part of the owners of public service vehicles to alter the seating capacity of such vehicles contrary to Rule 216 (2) of the Rules. ( 9 ) ON a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 32 of the Act, it emerges that the owner of a motor vehicle proposing to alter the vehicle in such a way that the particulars contained in the registration certificate are no longer accurate, he can do so only on giving a notice of the same to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he resides and obtaining his approval to the proposed alteration. It is made incumbent upon the registering authority to communicate its approval or refusal to the proposed alteration to the owner of a motor vehicle who has given notice of the proposed alteration within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. It is made incumbent upon the registering authority to communicate its approval or refusal to the proposed alteration to the owner of a motor vehicle who has given notice of the proposed alteration within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. If the registering authority fails to communicate its decision either of approval or refusal, within the aforesaid period of 7 days, the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act declares that the approval of the registering authority to the proposed alteration must be deemed to have been given. Therefore, necessarily a question will arise as to whether a deemed approval to the proposed alteration as per the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Act is available in a case where such alteration is impermissible in law. It is already pointed out that having regard to the nature of the vehicle in question, the provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the rules are attracted and the seating in the vehicle is required to be in conformity with the particulars stated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the Rules, as such the notice of the proposed alteration given by the petitioner is contrary to sub-rule (2) of Rule 216 of the rules. In such a case, if the deemed approval to the proposed alteration is held to be, applicable, and available, it will be nothing but encouraging an illegal act. That is not the object of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act. No law encourages or permits an illegal act. The object of a deeming provision in the context in which it occurs is to see that if a notice of the proposed alteration is permissible in law and the registering authority has unnecessarily failed to communicate its approval to the proposed alteration, the owner of the motor vehicle should not suffer for the inaction on the part of the registering authority and he can proceed with the proposed alteration on the basis that approval to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given. Thus the deeming provision is available to the alteration of the motor vehicle which is permissible in law and not to such alteration of the vehicle which is impermissible in law. Thus the deeming provision is available to the alteration of the motor vehicle which is permissible in law and not to such alteration of the vehicle which is impermissible in law. Even in a case where the proposed alteration is impermissible in law, the deeming provision as contained in the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 32 of the Act is held to be available, it would lead to very strange situations and would result in permitting an act which is prohibited by law. ( 10 ) NO doubt the decisions relied upon by the learned -counsel for the petitioner do support his contention that if approval or refusal to the proposed alteration is not communicated within a period of 7 days, as stated in the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Act, approval can be deemed to have been granted. But in all those cases, permission sought for, it was not contended as impermissible in law. In K. M. Shankarappa v City of Bangalore Municipal corporation, (S. N. R. D. 1972 Item No. 300 w. P. 5243/69 D. D. 19-2-72), the question as to permissibility of the relief sought for by the applicants therein was not raised and it was not considered. Similarly in Habeeb khandsari Industries v K. A. T. and Others, (1987 (1) Kar. LJ. 57) and Abdu Jabbar khan's case (ILR 1988 Kar. LJ. P. 2592), the question as to whether the permission sought for was impermissible in law or not was not raised. All the three decisions have proceeded on the basis that the permission sought for was not impermissible in law. As the permissions sought for were in accordance with law, it was not all necessary in those decisions to decide the question that is raised in this writ petition. Therefore, those decisions do not cover the point as to the illegality or otherwise of the permissions sought for by the applicants. The question of deemed grant would arise only when the application seeking such a grant is in accordance with law and the grant sought for is permissible in law. In a case where the application is not in accordance with law and the permission sought for is impermissible in law, the provision as to deemed grant cannot be applied and it cannot be held to come to the aid of such an applicant. In a case where the application is not in accordance with law and the permission sought for is impermissible in law, the provision as to deemed grant cannot be applied and it cannot be held to come to the aid of such an applicant. Therefore, I am of the view that in a case where the alteration of the seating capacity of the motor vehicle sought for by a registered owner of such vehicle and if such permission is impermissible in law, the fact that the registering authority has failed to communicate its approval or disapproval to the proposed alteration, does not enure to the benefit of the applicant and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Act does not apply to such a case. Accordingly, the point raised for determination is answered in the negative. ( 11 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. ( 12 ) SRI P. R. Ramesh, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of the respondent within six weeks from today. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .