K. A. Swami, J.
1. In this writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 1-8-1984 passed by the 2nd respondent in No. RGN. I. MYP. 4744. PR. 878. GBA 1984-85 produced as Annexure-A. The 2nd respondent by the aforesaid order has rejected the application filed by the petitioner on 21. 7. 1984 for converting the vehicle in question bearing Registration No MYP 4744 from Tourist Omni Bus into a stage carriage. The contentions of Sri Anandasetty, learned counsel for the petitioner are that the vehicle in question was once registered as a Class vehicle namely as a Tourist Omni Bus with seating capacity of 31, that subsequent to registration if the registered owner wants to change the class of the vehicle it is not open to the 2nd respondent to insist that seating capacity should be increased in accordance with Rule 216 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules): that the application for converting the vehicle into a stage carriage is filed under Section 32 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and as no reply whatsoever is sent to the petitioner within a period of seven days the application must be deemed to have been granted; therefore, the order rejecting the application after the expiry of one week is without jurisdiction or illegal. On the contrary, on behalf of the respondents it is submitted by Sri Abdul Khadar, learned Government Pleader that the vehicle in question is registered on 18-2-1978 as Tourist Omni Bus on a specific condition that it is exempted from the operation of Rule 216 of the Rules as long as it is covered by Country wide permit ; that the vehicle has seized to enjoy the Country wide permit with effect from 8-2-1983 ; therefore it is incumbent on the petitioner to increase the seating capacity ; that as the petitioner has failed to voluntarily increase the seating capacity the second respondent has issued a notice dated 26th July 1983 calling upon the petitioner to increase the seating capacity from 29 to 50 in all. There is no response whatsoever to the said notice. It is submitted that the notice still subsists ; that unless petitioner complies with the said notice it is not open to him to seek for conversion of the vehicle into a stage carriage ; that having regard to these facts there is no reason whatsoever to entertain the application filed on 21-7-1984; that under these circumstances, the deemed provision contained in Section 32 of the Act is not available to the petitioner. It appears to me that the contentions urged by learned Government Pleader deserve to be accepted. It is not a case in which the vehicle is registered as a tourist omni bus with 31 seating capacity without any condition. Specific condition is imposed to the effect that the vehicle is exempted from the operation of Rule 216 of the Rules as long as it is covered by a country wide permit. Accordingly, the vehicle was covered by All India Permit No. 13/1977-78 valid upto 2nd March of 1983 issued under Section 63(7) of of the Motor Vehicles Act. After 8 2-1983 the vehicle is not covered by All India Tourist Permit. After it is ceased to be covered by All India Tourist Permit the exemption granted also cases to be operative. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to have the seating capacity of the vehicle increased. As he has failed to do so the second respondent has issued the notice on 26-7-1983 calling upon the petitioner to increase the seating capacity. In such circumstances without increasing the seating capacity the petitioner could not have either made an application for converting the vehicle into a stags carriage or such an application if made could have been granted. That being so, the question of extending the benefit of the deeming provision to the petitioner doss not arise. It is also very pertinent to notice that in the application he does not make any reference either in relation to the specific condition on which the vehicle was exempted from Rule 216 of the Rules or notice issued by the second respondent on 26-7-1983 which was admittedly served upon the petitioner. Thus he has also suppressed the necessary facts in his application. That being so, it is not a case in which the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. In the normal course the vehicle could not have been registered as omni bus because it was required to comply with Rule 216 of the Rules. It was registered only because it was covered by All India Tourist Permit. For that purpose the seating capacity was required to be less than the required number since the vehicle was expected to undertake long journey and provide comfortable seats to the passengers. That being so, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the second respondent. I may also mention here that the decision in Writ Petitions 10278/80 and 1104/73 do not apply to the facts of the present case.
For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition fails and the same is rejected.