ORDER Aravind Kumar, J.—I have heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for petitioner and respondent and perused the case papers. Petitioner is in the third round of litigation. Factual matrix leading to filing of this writ petition are as under. Petitioner is an Educational Institution being run for the benefit of the students. To cater to their needs namely, for ferrying them, a bus bearing Registration No. KA 19 8559 was purchased in the year 2006 from one Sri D. Suresh, s/o. Sri Bharamappa. Said vehicle was transferred to the name of Headmaster of petitioner's school and necessary endorsement/entry came to be made in the Certificate of Registration and Certificate of Fitness issued to the said vehicle by the Regional Transport Authority, K.R. Puram, Bangalore on. 1-9-2006 vide Annexure-A. On an application made by the petitioner seeking for permission to grant said vehicle to be converted from 'Private Service Vehicle' to 'Educational Institution Bus', it was accorded by order of even date vide Annexure-D by jurisdictional Regional Transport Authority and accordingly the said vehicle was put to use according to petitioner. It is contended that on 8-9-2010 after students were dropped to the school around 12.00 noon, vehicle was taken to garage by name 'Welcome Auto Works' for servicing the vehicle and original documents of the vehicle had been retained at the school and while returning to pick up the students in the post lunch session vehicle was checked on 8-9-2010 and a report was prepared at the spot and certain deficiencies were noted in the check report by the Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles and said vehicle was taken to the jurisdictional Police Station and has been parked there. On request being made to release the vehicle by the petitioner, a demand notice dated 5-10-2010 was raised by respondents demanding a tax of Rs. 4,89,260/- from the petitioner. Being aggrieved by such demand notice, petitioner approached this Court in The Headmaster, Bharat Matha School, Hosakote Town, Bangalore Rural District v. State of Karnataka and Others 2013 (4) Kar. L.J. 412, W.P. No. 26194 of 2011 connected with W.P. Nos. 27821 to 27824 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 18-10-2011 disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to treat the said notice dated 5-10-2010 as show-cause notice and liberty was given to the petitioner to file objections. L.J. 412, W.P. No. 26194 of 2011 connected with W.P. Nos. 27821 to 27824 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 18-10-2011 disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondents to treat the said notice dated 5-10-2010 as show-cause notice and liberty was given to the petitioner to file objections. Further, direction was issued to second respondent therein to pass orders in accordance with law. On objections being filed and documents being produced, fourth respondent proceeded to pass orders on 8-12-2011 - Annexure-E confirming the earlier demand notice dated 5-10-2010. Petitioner being aggrieved by said order filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and application for stay came to be filed. The Appellate Authority granted an interim order of stay on 12-1-2012 - Annexure-K by directing 50% of the tax demanded to be deposited and for remaining 50% of the amount, bank guarantee was ordered to be furnished. 2. Said order came to be challenged by petitioner before this Court in W.P. No. 9186 of 2012. This Court after considering the arguments, by order dated 19-4-2012 disposed of the writ petition by modifying the order of Appellate Authority and directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the amount and for the balance 75% of the amount, bank guarantee was ordered to be furnished. Thereafter, appeal was taken up for consideration by the second respondent and by order dated 23-1-2013 disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter back to the respondents with a direction to collect tax in respect of the vehicle in question by treating it as 'Private Service Vehicle' which is at Annexure-Q. Consequential demand notice dated 14-3-2013 - Annexure-R for a sum of Rs. 3,73,152/- was raised which is impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Contention of Mr. Srikanth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that necessary permission had been obtained for converting the vehicle in question as 'Educational Institution Bus' and observations made by the Appellate Authority that petitioner failed to bring back the bus for necessary endorsement is erroneous and no notice came to be issued to the petitioner in this regard. Contention of Mr. Srikanth, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that necessary permission had been obtained for converting the vehicle in question as 'Educational Institution Bus' and observations made by the Appellate Authority that petitioner failed to bring back the bus for necessary endorsement is erroneous and no notice came to be issued to the petitioner in this regard. He would also contend that when the authorities themselves have permitted the vehicle to be converted as 'Educational Institution Bus' demanding tax by categorising it as 'Private Service Vehicle' that too on the ground that vehicle was not brought for inspection is uncalled for and as such, he prays for quashing of the same. 4. Per contra, Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents would draw the attention of the Court to subsection (3) of Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contend that when alteration made to a Motor Vehicle without the approval of the registering authority and if the vehicle is used as such, it would be in violation of said section and as such, Appellate Authority was justified in treating the said vehicle as 'Private Service Vehicle' particularly when the petitioner did not bring the vehicle for inspection to examine as to whether it is being used as 'Educational Institution Bus'. He would also draw the attention of the Court to Rule 55(1) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to contend that owner of the motor vehicle had to issue notice to the Registering Authority under Form 29 as contemplated therein for change of use of vehicle and same had not been done and as such he defends the order of Appellate Authority. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of case papers and also statutory provisions pressed into service, it requires to be noticed that on purchase of the vehicle in question by the petitioner in the year 2006, ownership of the vehicle was transferred to the name of Headmaster of the petitioner-school as evidenced from Annexure-A namely, Registration Certificate issued by the Regional Transport Authority. Simultaneously, petitioner has also made an application for converting/treating the vehicle in question as 'Educational Institution Bus' from 'Private Service Vehicle'. Said permission has also been granted as per Annexure-B by the Regional Transport Authority, K.R. Puram, on 1-9-2006. Simultaneously, petitioner has also made an application for converting/treating the vehicle in question as 'Educational Institution Bus' from 'Private Service Vehicle'. Said permission has also been granted as per Annexure-B by the Regional Transport Authority, K.R. Puram, on 1-9-2006. After a period of four years i.e. on 8-9-2010, vehicle came to be checked and check report came to be issued to the said vehicle and offences alleged against the petitioner and deficiencies found in respect of the vehicle in question are as under: 1. Found plying the motor vehicle on public road without RC, FC, C, TC, PT, MDL etc., and failed to produce the same on demand verification. 2. Registration number not displayed on the Motor Vehicle both in front and rear. 3. Registration number not displayed on the sides of the Motor Vehicle. 4. Name of the institution not painted on the sides and back of the motor vehicle. 5. Motor vehicle is in ricketing condition. Said report does not state that vehicle in question was not being used as 'Educational Institution Vehicle' or it was being used as a 'Private Service Vehicle'. Undisputedly petitioner has later on produced the documents of the vehicle before the respondent-authorities. Without adjudicating said notice, demand 10 came to be raised on 5-10-2010 as already noticed herein above. In fact the Regional Transport Officer in his order dated 8-12-2011 - Annexure-E, has opined that vehicle is recorded as Stage carriage in B-Register and said entry continued in the Registration Certificate. This is contrary to record namely, Registration Certificate-Annexure-A which would indicate that Regional Transport Authority has permitted the transfer of vehicle to be entered in favour of Headmaster of petitioner-school and he has also accorded permission to convert the vehicle from 'Private Service Vehicle' to 'Educational Institution Bus' as per endorsement dated 1-9-2006 found in Annexure-B. As such, order dated 8-12-2011 itself was without any factual foundation. In fact, Appellate Authority in the very impugned order dated 23-1-2013 has also not accepted the said finding recorded by the Regional Transport Authority, K.R. Puram i.e., fourth respondent. However, on a different ground, vehicle was ordered to be taxed as 'Private Service Vehicle'. The reason assigned by Appellate Authority is petitioner-institution had failed to bring back the vehicle for inspection for making necessary endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. However, on a different ground, vehicle was ordered to be taxed as 'Private Service Vehicle'. The reason assigned by Appellate Authority is petitioner-institution had failed to bring back the vehicle for inspection for making necessary endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle. Undisputedly ownership of the vehicle in question has been transferred to the name of Headmaster of the petitioner-school and permission has also been granted to convert the vehicle in question from 'Private Service Vehicle' to 'Educational Institution Bus' from 2006 to 2010. From the date of transfer and permission granted till date of checking of the vehicle, no notice has been issued to petitioner to cause production of vehicle for inspection or in other words respondent-authorities have not issued any notice. Sub-section (3) of Section 52 which has been pressed into service by learned Government Advocate would not come to the rescue of respondents inasmuch as, language employed therein is clear and unambiguous namely, only in the event of a motor vehicle without the approval of the Registering Authority has been altered or the reasons given thereunder, then only sub-section (3) of Section 52 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is attracted and not otherwise. 6. In this case, admittedly petitioner has obtained permission from Regional Transport Authority as per Annexure-B and as such, said contention cannot be accepted. When the vehicle in question is being used by the Educational Institution, and at no point of time they have called upon the petitioner to cause production of said vehicle for inspection respondent-authorities were not justified in raising a demand by treating the said vehicle as a 'Private Service Vehicle' without any factual foundation under the impugned order and as such, demand raised pursuant thereto, though it is automatic, is not attracted to the facts of the present case and such demand cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. However, quashing of this order would not come in the way of respondents to examine as to whether vehicle in question is being used for any other purpose other than the educational purpose and if they were to find that vehicle has been put into any other use, authorities would be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. With these observations, following order is passed: (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed. (2) Order dated 23-1-2013 Annexure-Q, demand notice dated 14-3-2013. With these observations, following order is passed: (1) Writ petition is hereby allowed. (2) Order dated 23-1-2013 Annexure-Q, demand notice dated 14-3-2013. Annexure-R are hereby quashed. (3) Respondents-authorities shall release the Bus in their custody forthwith not later than five days from today and file a report to this Court in this regard. (4) However, respondents would be at liberty to proceed against petitioner in the event of the vehicle, is being used for any other purpose, after issuing notice as observed hereinabove. (5) Respondents-authorities would also be at liberty to issue fresh demand notice by treating the vehicle as 'Educational Institution Bus'. (6) Costs made easy.