B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the registered owner of the Motor Vehicle bearing registration No. KA 06/m 1360 Bajaj Tempo Trax, having a seating capacity of 9+1. The petitioner intended to alter the vehicle from omni bus into a luxury taxi with an All India Permit and also to reduce the seating capacity to 5+1. Accordingly, the petitioner applied to the respondent for granting permission to effect the proposed alteration. But the respondent instead of permitting the petitioner accordingly, rejected the prayer to the effect that the vehicle in question is a Tempo Trax (Town and Country) 2650 WB vehicle and its capacity as 9 plus 1 and the tax is also being paid accordingly; the proposed alteration reduces the seating capacity to 5 plus 1. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel Sri B. R. Shailendra, the order of the RTO, Tumkur, is liable to be set aside because by alteration of the seating capacity, nothing would be changed. On the other hand Mr. Kotian, learned Government Advocate, submitted that all the vehicles are manufactured with the description of definite seating capacity. If the seating capacity is changed, it amounts to alteration. He also relied upon the decision in K. Gangadhar v Regional Transport Officer, Bangalore north, wherein His Lordship has stated in para 5 as follows. "i have carefully considered the submissions on both sides and 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. 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 limitation 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 Automative 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". ( 3 ) EVERY manufacturing company will manufacture the vehicles with certain motto and the company shall fix up the seating capacity according to the strength of chassis. According to the specification of the manufacturing company, the vehicle will be registered. All such vehicles should not unnecessarily venture to bring any alteration or modification to suit convenience. This is impermissible in law. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .