SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) IN brief, the facts leading to this writ petition are: the petitioner holds an inter-State stage carriage permit on the routs Bangalore to Coimbatore and back to operate with two vehicles during night hours. One of the vehicles - CAM 2962 is of 1981 model. To provide better and uninterrupted service he intended to replace the same in the interest of the travelling public. As such, the petitioner acquired Hindus than Isuzu Chassi. having a wheel base of 199" and has provided a seating capacity of 37+2 having constructed a luxury vehicle on it. The cost of (he vehicle is about Rs. 7 lakhs. He applied for registration of the said vehicle lo the Registering Authority, Bangalore Central, Bangalore. The said application was rejected staling that Rule 151 (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short the 'rules') prescribes the minimum seating capacity of 48 + 2. The petitioner challenged the said endorsement Annexurc-A as well as questioned the validity of Rule 151 in Writ Petition No. 21124 of 1989. During the pendency of the said writ petition an amendment was brought to Rule 151 adding sub-rule (3) stating: " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any public service vehicle or class of such vehicles used in any specified areas from the provision of the above sub-rules cither generally or for a specified period subject to such conditions as may be specified in that behalf. In view of the said amendment the petitioner made a submission in that writ petition that he would move the State Government to exempt his newly acquired vehicle from application of Rule 151. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to him to move the Government. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Government explaining the circumstances under which exemption was sought and pointed out that the State Transport Undertaking operating long distance inter-State routes during night hours is given exemption. The said application was forwarded to the commissioner for Transport, who rejected it on two grounds: (1) That granting exemption of application of Rule 151 for providing a lesser seating capacity would be against public interest (2) It would also involve financial loss to the Government. The petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 7659 of 1991. The said application was forwarded to the commissioner for Transport, who rejected it on two grounds: (1) That granting exemption of application of Rule 151 for providing a lesser seating capacity would be against public interest (2) It would also involve financial loss to the Government. The petitioner again approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 7659 of 1991. This court on 24-6-1991 while disposing of the said writ petition directed the first respondent alone to dispose of the application keeping in mind the principles enunciated in javare Gowda's case reported in 1991 (1) Karnataka Law Journal 126. Since no orders were passed by respondent No. 1 as directed, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings on 4-11-1991 the respondent has issued the endorsement stating that Vajre Gowda's case has no application to the facts of the case of the petitioner and Rule 151 (3) as amended speaks of exemption of public service vehicle to be operated within the specified area refers to taxis and public carriers and not to stage carriage vehicles. The said endorsement is filed at annexure-E. The validity and correctness of the same is challenged in this writ petition on various grounds. ( 2 ) THE respondent has not filed the statement of objections. ( 3 ) SRI S. V. Krishnaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Rule 151 (3) (d) provides for exemption to any public service vehicle or class of vehicles used in any specified area from the operation of Rule 151 (2) and the respondent has committed an error in stating that the word 'area' used in the said sub-rule is applicable only to motor-cabs, maxi-cabs and goods carriages and since stage carriage is a route permit the exemption cannot be given, in that the respondent has overlooked the definition of public service vehicle contained in Section 2 (35 ). He also contended that the respondent has discriminated in considering the application of the petitioner when such exemption is given to the State Transport Undertaking busses to operate with lesser seating capacity than the minimum prescribed under Rule 151 of the Rules. Further, according to the learned counsel the respondent has not taken into consideration that the vehicle is used for a long distance night service route of 375 kms. ; during night time the travelling public should have better accommodation, sleeping benefits, privacy and also security. Further, according to the learned counsel the respondent has not taken into consideration that the vehicle is used for a long distance night service route of 375 kms. ; during night time the travelling public should have better accommodation, sleeping benefits, privacy and also security. This could be done only by relaxing seats. ( 4 ) SRI C. V. Kumar, learned Government Pleader, argued in support and justification of the impugned order Annexure-E on the grounds stated in the impugned order. ( 5 ) IN view of the facts stated and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties the short question that arises for consideration is: whether under Rule 151 (3) (d) of the Rules exemption can be provided to a stage carriage vehicle? ( 6 ) IN order to answer the point that has arisen for consideration, I think it is use fulto extract the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 2 (35) defines 'public service vehicle' as:"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 maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage and stage carriage". Rule 151 (3) (d) as amended reads thus: " Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the Government may by notification in the official gazette exempt any public service vehicle or class of such vehicles used in any specified area from the provisions of above sub rules either generally or for a specified period subject to such conditions as may be specified in that behalf. Public service vehicle includes a stage carriage, which is clear from Section 2 (35) of the Act. Rule 151 provides exemption in respect of public service vehicle or class of such vehicles used in any specified area. The respondent in the impugned endorsement has stated that a stage carriage is a public service vehicle, covered by a route permit has to comply with Rule 151 (2) of the rules and that Rule 151 (3) (d) exempts such vehicles which are covered by permits issued under Section 74 of the Act and not permits issued under Section 72 of the Act by drawing distinction between the area and the route. In this context, it is better to have a look at Sections 72 and 74 of the Act. Section 72 deals with grant of stage carriage permits. In this context, it is better to have a look at Sections 72 and 74 of the Act. Section 72 deals with grant of stage carriage permits. The said section states that the Regional Transport Authority may grantpermit for a stage carriage subject to any rules that may be made under the act, attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 72. Condition No. (i) states that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes. Again, in Condition No. (iv) the words 'route and area' both are used. Even the first proviso to Section 72 (1) states: "provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application". Section 74 of the Act deals with the grant of contract carriage permit. Contract carriage is also included within the definition of public service vehicle. I am not able to understand as to why the operation of Rule 151 (3) (d) should be confined to vehicles covered by permits issued under a particular section. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has sought for exemption in respect of a stage carriage vehicle,which is included in the definition of the public service vehicle. It is stated in Rule 151 (3) (d) that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (1) and (2), the government may by notification in the official gazette exempt any public service vehicle or class of such vehicles used in any specified area from the provisions of above sub-rules either generally or for a specified period subject to such conditions as may be specified. It is one thing to say that Rule 151 (3) (d) does not provide for exemption in respect of a stage carriage vehicle and it is another thing to say that government may not grant exemption in respect of particular public service vehicle on a particular route or within a specified area. It is for the Government to consider whether exemption should or should not be granted in respect of a public service vehicle or class of such vehicles considering various facts and circumstances. It is for the Government to consider whether exemption should or should not be granted in respect of a public service vehicle or class of such vehicles considering various facts and circumstances. I am of the opinion that rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that Rule 151 (3) (d) does not provide for the exemption of a stage carriage vehicle is unsustainable on the ground that it is a route permit. It is stated in the impugned endorsement itself that 'area and route' have the same meaning as per the Act. Hence, there was no justification to hold as is done in the impugned endorsement that exemption cannot be granted to a stage carriage vehicle. Thus, I, conclude that rule 151 (3) (d) provides for exemption in respect of a stage carriage vehicle also. Whether exemption is to be granted or not to a stage carriage vehicle or class of such vehicles is a matter to be considered and decided by the State Government. ( 8 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated, I pass the following order: (1) The writ petition is allowed. (2) The impugned endorsement Annexure-E, dated 8-11-1991 is quashed. (3) The respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 18-10-1990 to grant exemption from Rule 151 of the rules permitting him to register the vehicle with the seating capacity of 37 + 2 on its merits and in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above, within one month from today. (4) No costs. --- *** --- .