M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case had applied for registration of his tata Sumo vehicle as a motor-cab. He has clarified that he desires to run it as a Luxury Taxi and since there are certain limitations with regard to the seating capacity of a motor-cab, that he had confined the seating of the vehicle to 5 passengers + driver. He applied to the respondent for registration as a motor-cab and on the respondent having refused to grant the registration, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present petition. ( 2 ) MR. Gupta, learned Advocate who represents the petitioner submits that in the first instance, the vehicle in question is one of the common ones manufactured in this country and he states that such vehicles have been regularly registered by the different authorities in this very State as motor-cabs and that a large number of such vehicles are run as motor-cabs. He submits that in this background, the action of the respondent is mala fide in so far as there is no ground on which the petitioner could have been singled out for such hostile discrimination. Secondly, he points out that having regard to the fact that the motor-cab is required to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver, that the petitioner has confined the seating capacity to only five passengers and the driver which is well within the limit and he submits that in this background, he is entitled to a direction to the respondent to register the vehicle as a motor-cab. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Advocate on instructions has submitted that the definition in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which appears in Section 2 (25) of the Act clearly lays down certain limitations with regard to the vehicles that can be registered as a motor-cab. He points out to the Court that under the definition of motor-cab, it has got to be a vehicle which has a seating capacity of not more than six passengers excluding the driver. What he points out is that as far as the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, that the Automotive Research Institute of the Government of India has evaluated the carrying capacity of this vehicle and has certified that it is built to carry 9+1 persons. What he points out is that as far as the Tata Sumo vehicle is concerned, that the Automotive Research Institute of the Government of India has evaluated the carrying capacity of this vehicle and has certified that it is built to carry 9+1 persons. He has produced before me a circular to this effect which has been issued to the various authorities. His contention is that having regard to the limitations that are prescribed by the law, that the respondent was fully justified in having refused the registration as a motor-cab. He also submits that if this aspect has been overlooked or breached by the other authorities who may have permitted such registration that all necessary corrective steps will be taken. He also advanced the submission that the authorities have looked into the classification of various vehicles and that there are certain tax implications, but that issue is extraneous to the dispute in the present case. ( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate Mr. Gupta submitted that under Section 2 (25) where the law uses the expression "not more than" six passengers excluding the driver, that nothing prevents a citizen from using a slightly bigger vehicle which is suitable for his purpose and confining it to a lesser seating capacity. His submission is that it is the actual seating capacity of the vehicle which is relevant and not the maximum seating capacity or carrying capacity which has been certified. He also contends that if the petitioner desires to operate the vehicle as a Luxury Cab and to reduce the seating capacity to only five passengers and a driver, that he would not have offended the provisions of the Act and is still entitled to registration. He also draws my attention to an earlier decision of this Court in W. P. No. 22954 of 1995, decided by my brother Raveendran, J. , on 17-11-1995. In that case, the vehicle was a Tata Sumo vehicle. An application was filed for registration as a motor-cab with a seating capacity of 5+1 and the authority had refused to register it on the ground that the motor-cab may be referred to the Transport commissioner. This Court took the view that there is no provision under which reference has to be made and that the r. T. O. is required to take an independent decision in the matter of registration. Though Mr. This Court took the view that there is no provision under which reference has to be made and that the r. T. O. is required to take an independent decision in the matter of registration. Though Mr. Gupta relies heavily on the fact that the petitioner in that case had succeeded, I need to point out on a perusal of the order passed that the aspect of the law which has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate in this case had never fallen for decision before the Court on that occasion and hence, that decision will not avail the petitioner. ( 5 ) I have carefully considered the submissions on both side sand to my mind, there is a definite legislative intent and purpose behind categorising of the different types of vehicles depending on their engineering and seating capacity where the law prescribes certain categorisations and limitations, it would not be permissible for a citizen to seek to overcome these categorisations merely by saying that the seats are lesser than those that are prescribed. It is essentially the size of the vehicle and the normal carrying capacity for which it has been built which will determine the purpose for which it can be registered. In a given case, if the vehicle has been suitably adopted the authorities may permit the registration provided the authorities are satisfied that the adoption in question is in order. In this case, the chassis of the vehicle has not been adopted nor have there been any modifications being made and to this extent therefore, the petitioner will be outside the permissible limits. The petitioner's learned Advocate did rely on the Circular issued by TELCO who are the manufacturers of the vehicle and he submits that this certificate does not lay down any limitations with regard to the carrying capacity of passengers. That Circular is only with regard to the pollution standards, road-worthiness and safety and it was for this reason that the authorities had referred the matter to the Automotive Research Institute. To my mind, the Circular issued by that body is conclusive and there is no reason why the Court should not go by it. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid situation, the writ petition fails and stands disposed of. --- *** --- .