JUDGMENT K.P. Radhakrishna Menon, J. 1. The petitioners are the partners of the firm under the name and style of K. A. K. P. Kunjamoo and Company and the first petitioner is the managing partner. The second petitioner is the proprietrix of the concern namely Jeeshan Transport. The petitioners own five tempo vans registered as goods carriages. The goods carriage involved in the proceeding evidenced by Ext. P1 bears registration No. KLG 9817. Ext. P1 is the check report prepared by the fourth respondent at the time when he seized the R. C. Book. From the R. C. Book it is clear that the vehicle is permitted to carry six persons in all in addition to the maximum load permitted to be carried namely 1605 Kgms. 2. According to the registering authority the driver of a Goods Carriage, like the one on hand, while on duty can carry only two persons including the driver. In support of this contention the authority has relied on R.303 (2) of The Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for short, The Rules. Permission, the authority concerned had given, to the driver to carry six persons in the vehicle, in the light of what is stated above, must be held to have been given wrongly and therefore the said wrong entry in the Registration Certificate required to be corrected. Proceeding to rectify the mistake, the authority concerned initiated, and it is at that stage the petitioners have moved the original petition for the following reliefs: - "(i) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ, direction or order directing the 3rd and 4th respondents to return the R. C. Book in respect of vehicle KLG 9817: (ii) to call for the records leading to Ext. P1 and to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1 by issue of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order; (iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ direction or order directing the respondents to allow the petitioners to operate the vehicles Nos. KLG 9817, KRP 5378, KRP 7232, KRG 2793 and KLG 7916 with seating accommodation for six persons under the existing permits issued covering the said vehicles; (iv) to give an interim direction to return the R. C. book of KLG 9817 and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. KLG 9817, KRP 5378, KRP 7232, KRG 2793 and KLG 7916 with seating accommodation for six persons under the existing permits issued covering the said vehicles; (iv) to give an interim direction to return the R. C. book of KLG 9817 and to stay all further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P1; (v) to allow the cost of this petition and (vi) to grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem just in the circumstances of the case". 3. The question thus arising for consideration is, Is the authority concerned justified in holding that in a goods carriage of the one involved in the proceeding can be allowed to carry only two persons including the driver and if that be so the additional seats provided for (admittedly) at the rear of the drivers seat are liable to be removed. 4. The answer to the question depends upon the construction of Clause.3 of R.46 read with R.303(2) of The Rules. R.46(3) provides that the driver of a goods carriage, while on duty shall not carry in the cab of the vehicle persons beyond the number permitted and for whom there is seating accommodation as provided for under sub-r.2 of R.303. The driver however shall not carry more than six persons in all in addition to him in a goods carriage. So says clause b of Sub-r.(3). These two clauses that is clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-r.3 of R.46 contains two prohibitions: (1) that the driver shall not carry in the cab of a goods carriage any persons unless it be that, as provided for under sub clause (2) of R.303 there is seating accommodation for such i persons at the rate of 38 centimetres for each person measured alongwith the seat excluding the space reserved for the driver and (2) that under no circumstances the driver shall carry more than six persons including the persons who can be carried in the cab of the vehicle in addition to himself in the vehicle. This in short is the scheme of these Rules. 5. Going by these Rules the endorsement in the registration certificate that the driver can carry six persons in the vehicle cannot be said to be a wrong endorsement warranting correction. 6. This in short is the scheme of these Rules. 5. Going by these Rules the endorsement in the registration certificate that the driver can carry six persons in the vehicle cannot be said to be a wrong endorsement warranting correction. 6. The above position notwithstanding the learned Government Pleader contended that the driver of a goods carriage can carry six persons in addition to himself provided these six persons can be accommodated in the cab. But going by the provisions contained in R.303(2), these persons it is further submitted, must be accommodated along the seat reserved for, the driver. The word 'cab' employed in this Rule must therefore be given the wider meaning namely a hansom for hire or taxi cab and not the restricted meaning namely the driver's shelter of a locomotive, motor, lorry etc. the pleader submits. The additional seats provided at the rear of the driver's seat in the goods carriage therefore require to be removed and it is with this in view the proceeding sought to be quashed, is initiated. I am not impressed by this argument. The word 'cab' in the context in which it is used, to my mind, can mean only the driver's shelter of the goods carriage. If the wider meaning is given to this word then clause (b) of sub-r.3 of R.46 would become otiose. The words 'in all in addition to the driver' indicate that the persons including those who are given accommodation in the cab carried in a goods carriage shall not be more than six in addition to the driver. To put it briefly the driver of a goods carriage while on duty cannot carry more than six persons including those who are accommodated in the cab. No person however shall be carried in a goods carriage upon the goods or otherwise in such a manner that such person is in danger of falling from the vehicle or when any part of such person in a sitting position is at a height exceeding 305 centimetres from the surface upon which the vehicle rests. So provides for by the first proviso to sub-r.(3) of R.46. Clause (c) of sub-r.3 contains another prohibition namely that the driver shall not carry any person for hire or reward in any goods carriage. 7. So provides for by the first proviso to sub-r.(3) of R.46. Clause (c) of sub-r.3 contains another prohibition namely that the driver shall not carry any person for hire or reward in any goods carriage. 7. The cumulative effect of these provisions is that the driver while on duty, shall not carry more than six persons in all including those who are accommodated in the cab in addition to himself in the goods carriage. From the discussion above it is clear that the proceeding initiated by the Registering Authority to rectify the supposed mistake is unwarranted. The penalty proceedings initiated by the authority concerned, going by the statements contained in the counter affidavit, have already been dropped. A reference in this connection to Para.3 and 6 of the counter affidavit it profitable. The O. P. therefore is allowed. No costs.