H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. ( 2 ) PETITIONER has moved an application for alteration of the vehicle i. e. , MYS 910 from 7 + 1 to 5 + 1 as a light motor vehicle and for permission to install diesel engine from the petrol engine. By its order of the date 18-10-1995 the original authority i. e. , the Regional Transport Officer rejected the application for alteration. "feeling aggrieved from that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 57 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, appeal No. 19 of 1995-96. The Appellate Authority i. e. , the deputy Commissioner for Transport, Shimoga Division, shimoga, by order dated 21-3-1996 partly allowed the appeal. He allowed the appeal to the extent that the petitioner was permitted to change the engine or to convert the engine from petrol to diesel. But it rejected the application for conversion from omnibus to light motor vehicle and the seating capacity from 7 + 1 to 5 + 1 as no proper reason for making that alteration was shown or indicated. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has come up with this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Original Authority and the Appellate Authority are bound to grant permission and the petitioner has got a right to convert it under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under. "52. Alteration in motor vehicle. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under. "52. Alteration in motor vehicle. (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 (a) he has given notice to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he has the residence or the place of business where the vehicle is normally kept, as the case may be, of the alteration he proposes to make; and (b) he has obtained the approval of that registering authority to make such alteration: provided 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 two per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration. (2) Where a registering authority receives a notice under sub-section (1), it shall, within 7 days of the receipt thereof, communicate, by post, to the owner of the vehicle its approval to the proposed alteration or otherwise. Provided that where the owner of the motor vehicle has not received any such communication within the said period of 7 days, the approval of such authority to the proposed alteration shall be deemed to have been given". A reading of this Section very clearly reveals that this Section contains the mandate in the negative when it says that no owner of a motor vehicle shall so alter the vehicle that the particulars contained in the certificate of registration are no longer accurate. A reading of this section per se reveals that no owner is permitted to alter the vehicle if it has a tendency or if it has a result of rendering the particulars of certificate of registration inaccurate. The rider or the bar which is created can be removed and such a change can be made only if two conditions are satisfied. One that the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the owner has the place of business and vehicle is kept is informed by notice i. e. , notice is given to the registering authority by the owner of the proposed alteration i. e. , before the alteration the owner proposes to make, and he seeks and obtains the approval to make that alteration. Unless these two conditions are satisfied and fulfilled sub-section (1) clearly reveals that the owner of the motor vehicle shall not so alter the vehicle as to render the particulars of certificate of registration inaccurate. No doubt, as per proviso (1) and (2), obtaining of approval may not be necessary 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 two per cent of the weight entered in the certificate of registration and similarly replacing of engine or part thereof of a vehicle with an intention to facilitate its operation on different types of fuel and source of energy shall be treated as an alteration. But that shall be subject to the conditions that may be prescribed. Sub-section (2), no doubt, requires the authority concerned to communicate its Order of either granting approval or refusing approval within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of notice under sub-section (1 ). If the authority fails to communicate the order within a period of seven days under sub-section (2), no doubt proviso provides that it will be deemed that approval to the proposed alteration is granted. ( 4 ) THUS, a reading of sub-sections (1) and (2) very clearly reveals that no owner of the motor vehicle is entitled to alter the vehicle in such a manner as to render the particulars of certificate of registration inaccurate or which has a tendency of disturbing the accuracy of the particulars given in the certificate. Unless the two conditions mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) are satisfied or are deemed to have been satisfied in the sense as indicated by proviso to sub-section (2 ). A reading of sub-section (2) further reveals, no doubt authority has got or is required to pass the order within seven days otherwise it amounts to granting of approval. It may direct the owner to furnish details or it may reject the application for want of proper and sufficient reasons to satisfy for grant of approval to the proposed amendment. ( 5 ) THE Regional Transport Authority's order at Annexure-Breveals that according to it there was tax due for the period from 1-3-1995 to 30-11-1995 to the tune of Rs. ( 5 ) THE Regional Transport Authority's order at Annexure-Breveals that according to it there was tax due for the period from 1-3-1995 to 30-11-1995 to the tune of Rs. 6,150/- and the regional Transport Authority's order directed the petitioner to clear of that tax which was in arrears and further directed that the motor vehicle shall not be converted without getting the permission from the authority and then it stated that the application for alteration is rejected. The order of the Regional transport Authority is not very happy one. No doubt the arrears of tax was there for the period earlier and it had directed its payment, but it should have communicated or given the reason for rejection. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Regional transport Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal and the appellate Authority considered the matter and observed that the plea of the registered owner to convert the motor vehicle which was registered as omnibus into light motor vehicle without any proper reason could not be allowed to be converted, if the basis for conversion sought is that tax is heavy. In my opinion, there was nothing wrong on the part of the Appellate Authority in dismissing the appeal as the Appellate Authority had considered the question and as no proper reason was indicated or shown in the application by the registered owner it dismissed the appeal and maintained the original order. My attention has been invited to the application for conversion itself. A reading of the application does not indicate why the petitioner wanted to convert the vehicle from omnibus to light motor vehicle. The expression in the application "for bona fide use" is altogether vague and does not give any reason. But, might it be that if the person wanted to make use of the vehicle personally and not as public service vehicle or as a omnibus i. e. , if the petitioner had intended to use the vehicle for his own use and not as a vehicle to be used for rendering service to the travelling public, the authority could have considered whether in the circumstances it may be permitted to that user. If a person purchases a vehicle for his own personal user and has registered the vehicle as omnibus and alike and the tax liabilities are heavier, then in that case, liability may be, also be a valid consideration. If a person purchases a vehicle for his own personal user and has registered the vehicle as omnibus and alike and the tax liabilities are heavier, then in that case, liability may be, also be a valid consideration. That person does not want to make use of it as transport vehicle for public but he wants to make use of it for himself why he should not be allowed to do so when he was not using for general public. Here in the application, nothing has been indicated, only the expression "for bona fide use" has been used. ( 6 ) THUS considered in my opinion, the application for conversion has been made without any specific reason as to why the bar created by sub-section (1) be allowed to be removed and no specific reason has been indicated so as to permit the alteration of the vehicle resulting in change or alteration of the particulars of certificate of registration. The application itself having been lacking in particulars, in my opinion was rightly rejected so far as the alteration of the nature of the vehicle was concerned i. e. , altering of it from omnibus to light motor vehicle. The order impugned does not suffers from any error of law or lack of jurisdiction. Subject to the above and the observations to the effect that it is open to the petitioner to move a fresh and proper application and the authority may consider that application according to law. The writ petition is hereby rejected and dismissed. --- *** --- .