( 1 ) ORDER the petitioner is the registered owner of two tourist vehicles bearing Registration Nos. KA-20 C 5155 and KA-208694. Conservation of the vehicles was sought from Tourist vehicle as stage carriage vehicles with enhancement of the seating capacity of 48 + 2. Accordingly, alteration was granted by second respondent. The petitioner provided push-back seats in the vehicles and started operating them on the routes in question after obtaining permits under the provisions of the M. V. Act of 1988 read with KMV Rules of 1989. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent got a complaint lodged through the M. L. A. with the second respondent, and on the basis of the same the vehicles were checked and reports were sent to him. On the basis of the same, in Annexure-A dated 27-9-2002 the 2nd respondent withdrew the permission granted earlier to the petitioner for alteration of the vehicles and directed the petitioner to restore the vehicles as Tourist Vehicles. Against the said order, appeal was filed before the first respondent and the same was dismissed on 19-2-2003 as per Annexure-C. Thereafter, the impugned order at Annexure-E dated 15-3-2003 is passed canceling the Registration Certificate of the vehicles on the ground that they do not comply with the requirements of Rule 128 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (hereinafter referred to as CMV Rules) and to take action under Section 53 (1) (a) of the Central Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the CMV Act ). Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions are filed seeking to quash Annexures-A, C and E. ( 2 ) STATEMENT of objections are filed by the respondents separately justifying the impugned orders and praying to dismiss the writ petitions. Emphasis is placed upon Rule 151 (2) and Rule 93 (6) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules (hereinafter referred to as KMV Rules ). According to the transport authorities, push-back seats shall be provided only to tourist vehicles and not for stage carriage vehicles and road tax has to be paid at the rates specified for tourist vehicles. ( 3 ) MR. P. R. RAMESH, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 148 of the KMV Rules to contend that providing push-back seats are permissible. According to him, the impugned orders are vitiated on account of non-consideration of the said Rule. ( 3 ) MR. P. R. RAMESH, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Rule 148 of the KMV Rules to contend that providing push-back seats are permissible. According to him, the impugned orders are vitiated on account of non-consideration of the said Rule. This contention cannot be accepted in view of Rules 93 (6) and 128 (10) of the CMV Rules read with Section 53 of the CMV Act. A perusal of Annexure-A disclose that upon inspection of the vehicles, it was found that the seating arrangements of the vehicles in question are not as prescribed in Rules 148, 149 and 150 of the KMV Rules. It was also noticed that the over-hang of the vehicles of 60% excess than the prescribed limit and with a view to provide more seats the chase is of the vehicles are welded and their length are increased. This is a finding of fact which is based on actual inspection of the vehicles by the competent Authority. Therefore, the authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders. It is for the petitioner either to run the vehicles as Tourist vehicles by obtaining the requisite permits and paying the tax or to alter the vehicle in conformity with the aforementioned provisions of the Act and Rules. ( 4 ) SO far as the allegations made against the 3rd respondent are concerned, even assuming that they are true, the fact remains that the vehicles of the petitioner are not in conformity with the statutory provisions and seating arrangement also are not in conformity with the Rules. As long as the vehicles are not in accordance with the requirements of the aforementioned Act and Rules, any allegations made against the 3rd respondent will not come to the aid of the petitioner nor petitioner can escape the compliance of the provisions of law. Even assuming that though the inspection of the vehicles was made by the Authorities at the instance of Ex. M. L. A. and that he has no locus standi to do so, the Authorities were justified in passing the impugned order which is in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 have passed the impugned orders to obey the orders of the higher authority-Joint Commissioner for Transport without affording opportunity to the petitioner, is baseless and wholly untenable. ( 5 ) THE grievance of the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 have passed the impugned orders to obey the orders of the higher authority-Joint Commissioner for Transport without affording opportunity to the petitioner, is baseless and wholly untenable. Petitioner himself has produced the Show Cause Notice at Annexure-C calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the Registration shall not be suspended. In the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order at Annexure-C, the Appellate Authority has mentioned thus:- after going through the records placed before this authority, it is felt that the Appellant has been given sufficient opportunity in the proceedings by issuing notices and the representative of the appellant physically present during joint inspection of the vehicles in question. The vehicles have violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and Rules made there under. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed in his Appeal by the Appellate Authority is not a speaking order and therefore the same is liable to be quashed. This contention cannot be accepted by this Court as the Appellate Authority has referred to the facts and legal contentions urged in the appeal and perused the order of the original Authority and its record, applied its mind and has come to the right conclusion in affirming the order of the original Authority by consciously applying its mind and the same is in conformity with law. Hence, it cannot be said that opportunity was not given to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the various decisions reported in AIR 1971 SC 246 In The Case Of Nagar Rice And Floor Mill Vs. Teekappa Gowda, 1976 (1) SCC 671 Jasbhai M. Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 443 Mithilesh Garg Vs. Union Of India, AIR 1985 Kar 196 , 1985 (1) Klj 139, 1985 (2) Klj 526 And AIR 2001 Kar 3522 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful and will not come to the assistance of the petitioner as the same are misplaced. On the other hand the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the third respondent, copies of which were produced along with Memo are well placed and they are against the petitioner. Writ Petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .