Judgment :- A stage carriage was registered with a seating capacity of fifty eight initially. Its owner now wishes to have the seating capacity reduced to thirty nine. The Registering Authority, before whom petitioner applied for permission to reduce the seats, declined to grant permission (vide Ext. P6). This Original Petition is in challenge of Ext. P6. 2. Petitioner got his stage carriage registered on 29-9-1986. Petitioner has been operating service with the said vehicle ever since that. It has been noted in the certificate of registration of the vehicle (vide Ext. P1) that its seating capacity is fifty eight. In 1990, petitioner obtained a regular stage carriage permit for conducting a town service on the route Chavara-Elampalloor. Then petitioner approached the Registering Authority for permission to reduce the seating capacity of the vehicle, but request was then rejected as per Ext. P4 order. This court quashed Ext. P4 as petitioner challenged it in O.P. 11983/91 of this Court. Learned single judge, who disposed of the Original Petition, found that the Registering Authority had not exercised his discretion legally or for valid reasons. Registering Authority again considered the matter in the light of judgment in the said Original Petition and passed the order which is impugned in the present Original Petition. 3. Two reasons have been advanced for refusing permission to reduce seats in petitioner's vehicle. First is that number of seats provided in the vehicle is within the permissible limit specified in Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short 'the rules') and the second is that any further reduction in seating capacity will affect Government revenue. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Registering Authority has stated the same reasons once again without adopting a fresh look on this question. A common reasoning adopted in both orders is that number of seats provided in the bus is within permissible limits specified in the Rules and the added reasons shown in the impugned order is that reduction of seating capacity would affect Government revenue. Though plenty of reasons has not been stated, it is not correct to say that Registering Authority simply repeated the same old reasons once again. 4. It is undisputed that reduction of seating capacity would reduce tax burden as the tax liability in respect of a vehicle is fixed on the basis of number of seats of the vehicle concerned. 5. 4. It is undisputed that reduction of seating capacity would reduce tax burden as the tax liability in respect of a vehicle is fixed on the basis of number of seats of the vehicle concerned. 5. Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the act) says that no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration shall not be rendered inaccurate. Owner of a vehicle has to give notice to the registering authority regarding the alteration he proposes to make and obtain the approval of such authority. 6. R.267 of the Rules directs that reasonably comfortable seating space of thirty-eight centimeters square shall be provided for each passenger in every vehicle. According to the said rule, the number of standing passengers shall be so fixed that they shall not exceed 25 per cent of the passengers for whom there is seating accommodation. In the case of city-town services over and above the sitting passengers 50 per cent of that number can be allowed as standing passengers. R.269 of the Rules provides for the minimum seating capacity of a stage carriage. This factor is linked with the wheel base of the vehicle. A table is provided in the Rule specifying the minimum seating capacity for different sizes of vehicles. (Wheel base of petitioner's vehicle is such that its minimum seating capacity should be fifty). If the vehicle has separate entrance and exit the minimum number of seats can be reduced by two and if it is used as a city or town service, the seating capacity can be further reduced by 1/5th. The above are the specifications provided in sub-rule (1). Sub-rule (3) reads thus: "Sub-rule (1) shall not so apply to a stage carriage registered before the commencement of these rules but when its body is reconstructed at any time it shall provide the maximum number of seats possible in the existing body, to the satisfaction of the registering authority subject however to the minimum required under sub-rule (1) and without reducing the existing number of seats". A reading of the rules would thus indicate that it is not the right of any owner of a vehicle to reduce seating capacity in any manner he likes. A reading of the rules would thus indicate that it is not the right of any owner of a vehicle to reduce seating capacity in any manner he likes. Of course it is open to the Registering Authority to consider whether there are good reasons for permitting the owner of a particular vehicle to reduce the seating capacity without crossing the limit of minimum seats. But in this case, petitioner has not shown any reason whatsoever to justify the reduction. He did not produce a copy of the application seeking permission to reduce the seating capacity. Apparently petitioner's motive is to get reduction in his tax liability. Though the petitioner, as a tax payer may be justified in entertaining a desire like that, a registering authority is not expected to be persuaded by that consideration. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong if the registering authority took into account possibility of loss of revenue for the State as a consequence of slicing down the seating capacity. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext. P6 order. Original Petition is accordingly dismissed.