Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage having a regular permit. The vehicle is having register No. KLV 3139. The bus is operating on the route Elamballur -Sakthikulangara. The permit was issued to the petitioner as a town service with effect from 10.7.1982. The vehicle is having a seating capacity of 53 as per the registration particulars. The vehicle is admittedly registered in the year 1977. The petitioner approached the Regional Transport Officer to reduce the seating capacity of the vehicle. That request was declined as per Ext. P2 stating that such a request cannot be considered since the proposed alteration will cause heavy revenue loss to the Government. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P2 and seeking a direction to the respondent to endorse the seating capacity of the petitioner's vehicle KLV 3139 as 42 in all including the standing capacity. 2. The basis for the petitioner's request is R.289 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules introduced with effect from 14.6.89. It is provided in the sub-r.(1) that the seating capacity of the vehicle shall be commensurate with the wheel base of the vehicle as contained in the table in the sub-rule with the exceptions carved out in the proviso. The first proviso is to the effect that the minimum seating capacity as provided in table No. 1 may be reduced by two seats in the case of stage carriage with separate entrance and exit. The second proviso is to the effect that such minimum number so reduced may be reduced further by one fifth in the case of stage carriages operating as City/Town service. The petitioner therefore, submits that as the stage carriage permit made being one relating to Town service, the existing seating capacity of 55 shall be reduced to 35. On the basis of it, the petitioner contends that the orders in Ext. P2 is illegal. The only consideration contained in Ext. P2 is the loss of revenue. That is not at all an aspect in terms of R.269 to be considered for reduction of seating capacity and thus to alter the permit. Therefore, Ext. P2 is illegal, the petitioner contends. 3. It is pointed out by the Government Pleader that sub-r.(1) of R.269 is not applicable in the light of the sub-r.(3) thereof. That is not at all an aspect in terms of R.269 to be considered for reduction of seating capacity and thus to alter the permit. Therefore, Ext. P2 is illegal, the petitioner contends. 3. It is pointed out by the Government Pleader that sub-r.(1) of R.269 is not applicable in the light of the sub-r.(3) thereof. Sub-r.(3) thereof prescribes that sub-r.(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-r.(1) and without reducing the existing number of seats". Therefore, the proviso to sub-r.(1) which enables the registering authority to reduce the seating capacity does not apply, to a vehicle registered before 14.6.89. Admittedly the petitioner's vehicle was registered as early as in 1977. Therefore, the provisos to sub-r.(1) to R.269 have no application to the petitioner's vehicle. 4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the words employed in sub-r.(3) is that "sub-r.(1) shall not so apply" to mean that the main part of sub-r.(1) will not apply but the provisions shall apply. It is the proviso which permits reduction of number of seats. But number of seats is provided in the main part of the sub-rule. If there is no provision providing for the number of seats, there cannot be any application of the provisos to reduce the seats. Therefore, the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 5. If any meaning has to be ascribed to the words'sub-r.(1) shall not so apply', it shall be sub-r.(1) shall not apply to reduce the seats as provided in the provisos to sub-r.(1). Then alone it will have a meaning. On that construction, the petitioner cannot get a relief as prayed for because the vehicle was registered long prior to the commencement of this rule. So, whether the sub-r.(1) apply totally or in part, in the light of the sub-r.(3) the petitioner cannot seek an order to reduce the seating capacity, in variation of the certificate or the permit as the case may be. 6. So, whether the sub-r.(1) apply totally or in part, in the light of the sub-r.(3) the petitioner cannot seek an order to reduce the seating capacity, in variation of the certificate or the permit as the case may be. 6. Moreover, it is provided that in sub-r.(3) itself that "maximum number of seats possible in the existing body, to the satisfaction of the registering authority subject however to the minimum required under sub-r.(1) and without reducing the existing number of seats" shall be provided when there is reconstruction of the body. That also makes it clear that in respect of the vehicles registered before the commencement of the rules, the proviso regarding reduction of number of seats do not have any application. 7. It is to be noted that seats are provided in stage carriages for the convenience of the passengers. Seats are sought to be reduced not to provide convenience. In Kerala, every private bus is over-loaded because of the density of population especially in town. In such circumstances, the attempt to reduce the seating capacity cannot be taken as a bonafide request from the owner of the vehicle. It can only to provide more standing passengers in the vehicle and thus cause much inconvenience to the public at large. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner is not in public interest as well. 8. In the decision reported in Muraleedharan Filial v. R.T.O. Kollam (1992 (1) KLT 726), it had been held that, "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". Therefore, the reason stated in Ext. P2 cannot be stated to be bad, as contended by the petitioner. It is perfectly germane to the issue. A Division Bench of this court in the decision reported in Gopalakrishnan v. R.T.O., Alleppey (1997 (1) KLT 386) held that,, "reduction of revenue is a valid ground to reject the application for alteration of the vehicle". 9. Taking into account the impact of S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and R.267 of the Rules, the owner of the vehicle cannot seek for reduction of seats as a matter of right and entitlement. 10. The petitioner has brought to my notice decision of this Court as contained in Ext. P1 judgment in O.P. 12720/94. 9. Taking into account the impact of S.52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and R.267 of the Rules, the owner of the vehicle cannot seek for reduction of seats as a matter of right and entitlement. 10. The petitioner has brought to my notice decision of this Court as contained in Ext. P1 judgment in O.P. 12720/94. It is held in the said decision that, "Under the first proviso to R.269 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, the petitioner's vehicle 'is en titled to reduction of seating capacity by 2 seats on the ground that the vehicle has a separate entrance and exit". It was also held that going by the proviso to R.269, he is entitled to a further reduction by one-fifth provided it is a city/town service. The one-fifth of 53 is 10. So by reducing 10 seats from 53, the balance in 43. A reading of that judgment shows that this court proceeded as if sub-r (1) was applicable to that vehicle. In other words, whether the vehicle was registered before the enforcement of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 or after the enforcement of the said rules was not an issue before this Court in that case. Here, the admitted case before me is that the vehicle was registered before the enforcement of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Therefore, sub-r.(3) to R.269 squarely applies to the vehicle owned by the petitioner. As that aspect was not considered in Ext. P1 and as Ext. P1 proceeded on the basis that the provisos to sub-r.(1) to R.269 were applicable to the vehicle which was the subject matter of the original petition which lead to Ext. P1 judgment, the facts in this case do not permit me to follow that judgment. O.P. therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed. \