JUDGMENT : ASHOK MENON, J. 1. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19.3.2013 dismissing WP(C) No.14732/2010, the petitioner is before us in Appeal. 2. The appellant/petitioner is a proprietorship by name Kalagruham Music School, claiming recognition by the 'Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi', and Ext.P1 is copy of the certificate pertaining to the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2011. It is stated that the Institution is imparting training to aspiring Artists in the field of music, drama, mimicry, instrumental music, painting etc. There are about 2400 students studying in the Institution. The petitioner owns two omni buses bearing Reg.Nos.KL-17/4583 and KL-17/A-5695 with a seating capacity of 17 and 23 respectively, with registration certificates as Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioner claims that the vehicles are being used solely for transportation of students studying in the Institution and hence claims all benefits as the vehicles owned by educational institutions are entitled to. Section 2(11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’, for short) defines an “educational Institution bus”. Ext.P4 application was made by the petitioner claiming exemption from contribution under the Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 as also for reduced tax intended for the buses owned by educational institutions. When consideration of the application made by the petitioner was delayed, he approached this Court, and vide Ext.P5 judgment, the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Kothamangalam was directed to dispose of the petition within a time frame. The application was considered and rejected vide Ext.P6 order. The petitioner once again approached this Court challenging Ext.P6. This Court vide Ext.P7 judgment observed that the petitioner had not resorted to the statutory remedy of appeal as provided under Section 57 of the MV Act and the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and therefore, disposed of the petition directing him to approach the Deputy Transport Commissioner in appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal which too was rejected vide Ext.P8 order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order in the Writ Petition, which was dismissed. Hence this Appeal. 3. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an appeal which too was rejected vide Ext.P8 order of the Deputy Transport Commissioner. The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order in the Writ Petition, which was dismissed. Hence this Appeal. 3. The only question that arises for consideration before us is whether the buses plied by the appellant are buses belonging to an educational institution as defined under Section 2(11) of the MV Act and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of reduced tax rate as prescribed in Entry 13 of the Schedule to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1976 (‘Taxation Act’, for short) as well as exemption from payment of contribution stipulated under the Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act. 4. In the impugned judgment, it was held that as per SRO 10/99, the vehicle should be registered in the name of the Principal/Headmaster or President/Secretary of the PTA of the Institution concerned to be eligible for the benefit claimed, and subsequent circular No.30/2004 issued is also to the above effect. It was observed that the fundamental question to be examined is whether the petitioner qualifies to be an educational institution to claim the benefit for its buses. It is observed that the Institution is neither recognised by the Government nor any of its Agencies or Universities. The petitioner does not impart any training for any academic course. No degree or diploma is issued to the Artists who are trained and therefore, the Institution run by the petitioner cannot be stated to be an 'educational institution' coming within the purview of the definition under Section 2(11) of the MV Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of tax rebate. That apart, the impugned judgment also takes note of the fact that as per Ext.P4, transportation for students is only on Saturdays and Sundays, which itself would make it clear that there is no regular classes conducted in the institution. Thus, the Writ Petition was dismissed. 5. The impugned judgment is challenged on the following grounds :- Exts.P6 and P8 orders are unsustainable and are patently arbitrary. The Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi is a statutory body constituted by Government of Kerala for promoting music and drama and the petitioner had obtained registration under the said Akademi, which has been totally ignored in the impugned judgment. 5. The impugned judgment is challenged on the following grounds :- Exts.P6 and P8 orders are unsustainable and are patently arbitrary. The Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi is a statutory body constituted by Government of Kerala for promoting music and drama and the petitioner had obtained registration under the said Akademi, which has been totally ignored in the impugned judgment. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed reversing the findings in the impugned judgment and the Writ Petition be allowed. 6. It is not in dispute that buses belonging to any institution coming under the definition of an 'educational institution bus' as defined under Section 2(11) of the MV Act would be entitled to the benefits and concessions as provided under Entry 13 of the Taxation Act as well as concessions and exemptions under the allied Statutes. The only question for determination before us is whether the appellant institution is an 'educational institution' and its buses come under the purview of the definition under the MV Act. Section 2(11) defines an educational institution bus as follows: “2(11) “educational institution bus” means an omnibus, which is owned by a college, school or other educational institution and used 7. The Act does not define an 'Educational Institution'. The petitioner is therefore obliged to prove that the Kalagruham Music School is such an institution. The only document through which the petitioner strives to prove its status as an educational institution is the registration certificate solely for the purpose of transporting students or staff of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities” which it has obtained under the 'Kerala Sangeetha Nataka Akademi'. The primary functions of the Akademi as can be seen from the Akademi's website, is; “Publication of rare and valuable books on various arts like music, drama and dances of Kerala is an important programme of this institution. Besides, a bi-monthly journal entitled 'KELI’ which functions as the mouth piece of this institution is also published regularly. Helping artists by financial assistance, disbursing annual financial grants for Arts clubs and institutions, conducting amateur and professional drama competitions and arranging art festivals etc., are a few of the regular activities of the Akademi” . It cannot be assumed that the Akademi has any authority to recognize 'Educational Institution' or confer any such status on such institution. Helping artists by financial assistance, disbursing annual financial grants for Arts clubs and institutions, conducting amateur and professional drama competitions and arranging art festivals etc., are a few of the regular activities of the Akademi” . It cannot be assumed that the Akademi has any authority to recognize 'Educational Institution' or confer any such status on such institution. There is not an iota of evidence to indicate that the petitioner is conducting any examination or course imparting education to the students admitted there. There are no degrees or certificates issued by the petitioner to the students on completion of their course successfully. There is also nothing to indicate that the students who qualify from the petitioner institution are entitled to any consideration for the purpose of placement anywhere or that the institution is recognised by the Government for the purpose of employment. Annexure-R1(a) is copy of Government circular No.30/2004 dated 29.9.2004. The said circular is in the form of a clarification on the background of the registering authority’s insisting that the vehicles should be registered in the name of Principal or Manager of the school/education institution for classifying them as educational institution buses. By virtue of this circular, it is clarified that the vehicles should be registered in the name of Headmaster/Principal or the President/Secretary of PTA for classifying them as educational institution buses. It is also made clear that the vehicles owned by societies or other institutions which run an educational institution, can also be classified as educational institution buses, provided that the buses are being used solely for the purpose of transporting students and teachers of the educational institution in connection with any of its activities. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the petitioner is plying the buses referred to in the petition solely for the purpose of the students, who are studying in the institution. On the other hand, even in Ext.P4 request, the petitioner has categorically admitted that the concerned vehicles are operated for transporting students only on Saturdays and Sundays. We find no reason to upset the findings in the impugned judgment. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.