Judgment :- Rajan, J. These cases in which an interpretation of S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred 10 as 'the act) is involved can be broadly classified into three groups. Writ Appeal Nos. 31/95,130/95 and 832,849,964 & 630/96 are appeals filed by registered owners of motor vehicles from the common judgment of the learned single judge who dismissed their original petitions. W.A.Nos. 1244,1477,1608,1205,11677 95 & 93,117 and 134/96 are appeals filed by the State against the judgment of another learned single Judge. O.P.Nos.14614, 14703, 13783, 14739 and 13562/95 are similar cases referred to the Division Bench. All the appellants except the State and the petitioners are registered owners of motor vehicles, which are classified as omni buses, mini buses, truckers or LMV light motor vehicles. Almost all of them are holders of contract carriage permits. The seating capacity of their vehicles varies from 9 to 16 including the driver. It is seen from the records (please see counter affidavit filed in O.P. No. 14703/95 and Ext. P3 order in W. A. No. 130/95) that the seating capacity of the vehicles has been fixed by the manufacturers themselves and the proto types of these vehicles were subjected to test by the Vehicle Research and Development Establishment as enjoined under R.126 of the Motor Vehicles Rules (Central). In all these cases, the registered owners filed petition before the Regional Transport Officer for sanction for alteration of the seating capacity by one or two seats. In some of the petitions, the reason seated for such a request is that they find it difficult to carry on with the vehicle on account of the present increase in the tax and other maintenance expenses. 2. S.52 of the Act deals with alteration in motor vehicles. "According to S.52(1), no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate unless he has given notice to the registering authority and he has obtained the approval of that authority to make such alteration. The proviso to S.52 states that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories if such change does not exceed 2% of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. 3. The proviso to S.52 states that it shall not be necessary to obtain such approval for making any change in the unladen weight of the motor vehicle consequent on the addition or removal of fittings or accessories if such change does not exceed 2% of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. 3. Therefore, we have to see whether the change in the seating capacity of the vehicle is an alteration of the vehicle as described in S.52 of the Act. If we look into the meaning of the word 'alter' in the manner in which it is understood by a cornmonman, it means a change in character, position, size or shape. Thus, unless the reduction of one of two seats of the vehicle constitutes a change in character, size or shape of the vehicle, it cannot be an alteration within the meaning of S.52 of the Act. In this connection, it is advantageous to refer to S.15 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 1994, by which S.52 of the principal Act was amended. By the above amendment, after sub-s.(5), the following sub-section and explanation were "inserted: "(6). No person holding a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement shall make any alteration to the vehicle for which approval of the registering authority is required under sub-s.(1), except with the written consent of the registered owner." Explanation:- For the purpose of this section, "alteration" means a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in change in its basic feature" The above explanation fully supports our interpretation of the word 'alteration' which now is made clear as a change in the structure of a vehicle, which results in change in its basic feature. Though an attempt was made by Sri. P. Ravindran, learned counsel for some of the registered owners of the vehicles that the explanation as it appears after sub-clause (6) can be applied only to the new sub-section added and not to the main section, we have no hesitation to reject the above argument because the explanation makes it clear that it is for the purpose of this section. (Emphasis supplied). 4. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that whenever a registered owner of the motor vehicle wants to charge the seating capacity either by reduction or by increase, he need not obtain any approval of the registering authority. (Emphasis supplied). 4. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that whenever a registered owner of the motor vehicle wants to charge the seating capacity either by reduction or by increase, he need not obtain any approval of the registering authority. At the same time, the proviso to S.52(1) necessitates such an approval if the addition or removal of fittings or accessories will result in exceeding 2% of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. 5. It is also pertinent to point out that in the counter affidavit filed by the registering authority in O.P, No.-14703/95 it has been stated as follows: "3. The vehicle was constructed and adopted for carrying 15 passengers including driver and it was registered as Omni Bus on 20.1.1995 as 1994 model and subsequently altered as contract carriage on 27.1.1995 within the same seating capacity. This vehicle was manufactured by Bajaj Tempo Ltd with a sterio type body just like Hindustan Ambassador motorcar. The production of tins type of Bajaj Tempo with, seating capacity of 15 in all was examined by a technical expert committee authorised by the Central Government under R.126 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. By mis approval, the technical expert committee has specified the vehicle exclusively for carrying 15 passengers (including driver). The vehicle was registered as omni bus according to the proto type test conducted and approved, as this is exclusively made for carrying 15 passengers. The structural alteration at any manner including seating capacity shall not be allowed". Thus, it is evident that the present seating capacity of these vehicles was fixed by the manufacturer in accordance with the relevant rules under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules. In O.P. No. 19882/95 (W.A. No. 832/96) Ext. P3 order of the registering authority has been produced by the petitioner. In the above order also it was stated that the vehicle is registered as per K.M.V. Rules 267 and 270 and is approved by the proto type certificate issued by the Government as per R.126 of the K.M.V Rules and registration was also made with a seating capacity of 16 in all as per the specification of the seating capacity as 16 in all by the manufacturer. 6. According to S.52(2) of the Act, the registering authority shall communicate the approval to the proposed alteration within seven days of receipt of the notice under sub-s.(1). 6. According to S.52(2) of the Act, the registering authority shall communicate the approval to the proposed alteration within seven days of receipt of the notice under sub-s.(1). If the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of 7 days, the approval of the authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given. Following the above deeming provision, the original petitions filed by the registered owners were allowed by a learned single judge. From the above judgment, the State has filed a batch of writ appeals. In view of our categoric finding that no approval is necessary with regard to the reduction or increase in the seating capacity, there is no question of deeming provision coming into play in these cases. 7. Sri. P.K. Behanan, learned counsel for the Government argued that the registering authority has got ample power to take into account the loss of revenue for the State as a consequence of reducing the seating capacity and the owner of a vehicle has no absolute right to reduce the seating capacity in any manner he likes. We are not deciding the above question of impact of the reduction in the seating capacity on the tax imposed on the vehicle in these cases. 8. Under these circumstances our conclusions in these writ appeals and original petitions are as follows: (1) A registered owner need not obtain the approval of the registering authority if he wishes to reduce or increase the seating capacity under S.52 of the Act. But if the result of any such change is, exceeding 2% of the weight entered in the certificate of registration, then the approval of the registering authority is necessary. (2) Since no approval is necessary normally, in the case of reduction of seating capacity, the deeming provisions contained in the proviso to S.52(2) is inapplicable in these cases. (3) The alteration within the meaning of S.52(1) must be a change in the structure of a vehicle which results in change in its basic feature. 9. The question whether the loss of revenue for the State is a relevant factor in refusing approval for changing seating capacity is left open. The writ Appeals and the original petitions are disposed of with the above observations. We make no order as to costs. C.S. Rajan, Judge 10. 9. The question whether the loss of revenue for the State is a relevant factor in refusing approval for changing seating capacity is left open. The writ Appeals and the original petitions are disposed of with the above observations. We make no order as to costs. C.S. Rajan, Judge 10. I have gone through the judgment just now pronounced by my learned brother C.S. Rajan a.). I add a few sentences of my own explaining the nature of alteration sought to be brought out to the vehicles owned by the registered owners in these cases. 11. The types of vehicles with which we are concerned in these appeals and petitions are having bodies built by the manufacturer. The manufacturers have fixed its seating capacity. Registered owners purchased these vehicles knowing fully well its seating capacity. The seats of these vehicles can be rearranged if so required. That rearrangement and consequent reduction of the seals will not result in alteration of the vehicle. Nor will the said rearrangement change the seating capacity of the vehicle. Seating capacity of the vehicle remains same unless the same is structurally altered. Registered owners of the vehicles involved in these cases have no case that the vehicle underwent any structural change or alteration. It is common knowledge that addition or reduction of one or two seats will not in any manner change the character or nature of the vehicle. 12. R.103 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 deals with "Recording alteration to a motor vehicle". As per clause (1) of that rule, registering authority is to ascertain suitability of alteration. Ascertainment must be to satisfy whether the alteration made is suitable. This shows that the alteration coming within the purview of the Rule should be such that may affect the suitability or otherwise of the vehicle as a vehicle. Addition or reduction of one or two seats will under no circumstance go to affect the suitability of the vehicle. 13. The above aspect is made further clear by clause (2) of the same Rule. On inspection if the Registering authority comes across any of the situations falling within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) or (b) of clause (2) he should prepare and issue a fresh measurement certificate in Form M.C. and a sketch showing seating arrangement, dimension etc. Sub clause (a) deals with structural alteration requiring changes in the particulars noted in registration certificate. On inspection if the Registering authority comes across any of the situations falling within the ambit of sub-clauses (a) or (b) of clause (2) he should prepare and issue a fresh measurement certificate in Form M.C. and a sketch showing seating arrangement, dimension etc. Sub clause (a) deals with structural alteration requiring changes in the particulars noted in registration certificate. Owners of the vehicles in these cases have no case that they earned out any structural alteration to the vehicle. Their case is that by reduction of the seats, entry in item 13 of the registration certificate is made incorrect and consequently there is alteration. This argument cannot stand because item 13 is "seating capacity" and by reducing the seats the seating capacity of the vehicle is not altered. Sub clause (b) deals with rearrangement of seats. This can be apply only to vehicles seating capacity of which has not been fixed by the manufacturer. This can be the only interference because of form MC measurement certificate. That certificate has no relevance as far as vehicles manufactured with proto type having fixed seating capacity. These circumstances also go to support the view that alteration of the vehicle contemplated therein does not take in addition or reduction of seats in vehicles having seating capacity fixed by the manufacturers. I agree with the conclusions reached by my brother and the Writ Appeals and Original Petitions are disposed of accordingly.