N KRISHNASAMI CHETTY Vs. LICENSING OFFICER DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CHITTOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the respondent, on the ground that the vehicles of the petitioners covered by All India tourist permits were found plying regularly as stage carriages has called upon the petitioners to pay the tax for the concerned quarters. The petitioners have uniformly contended before the respondent and they equally contend before this Court that their vehicles had been hired to the Travel Agents as a whole for fixed sums of money and if the Agents collected individual fares from each of the passengers, the petitioners could not be made liable for the same. They also contended before the respondent and contend here also that the collection of separate fares is not prohibited under S.2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, when it defines. 'contract carriage', and their vehicles plied between the two points without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of the routes passengers not included in the contract. These contentions were not countenanced by the respondent and the grounds expressed by the respondent for mulcting the petitioners with the liability to pay tax are as follows :- (1) The vehicles of the petitioners were found carrying individual passengers, who had paid separate fares. (2) That the passengers had not contracted to use the vehicle as a whole has not been disputed by the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the definition of 'contract carriage' found in S.2(3) of the Act does not inhibit the collection of separate fares from the passengers and further the petitioners have been throughout placing their case on the basis that the vehicles had been hired to the Travel Agents as a whole for fixed sums of money and the statement in the impugned orders that the petitioners have not disputed the allegation that the passengers had not contracted to use the vehicle as a whole is a patently wrong statement and further if the criteria to be adopted to distinguish a 'contract carriage' from a 'stage carriage' as set down in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 841 is taken note of, the petitioners could be mulcted with the liability to pay tax on the basis that their vehicles were plied as 'stage carriages.'

(3.) Section 2(3) of the Act defines 'contract carriage' as follows :-