KAZI SHAKIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the conductor of a bus being used for hire or reward will be included as an account as a passenger and pay tax for the seat which he uses.

(2.) THIS petition was filed in the year 1983. The matter was pending before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3764 of 1982-Jagdish Chandra Gupta v. State of U. P, and another. In this matter, an ad interim order was passed on 21st February, 1983 by the Supreme Court that in the context of the conductor's seat, so oc cupied, the realisation of tax under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1933 would remain stayed. In the meantime, while this writ petition was pending, there was an Ordinance, U. P. Ordinance No. 23 of 1984. which caused an amendment to be made as an Explanation 2 to the First Schedule of the Act aforesaid, the effect of which was that the seat meant for the driver and the conductor was not be taken into account for computing the amount of tax. THIS Ordinance, subsequently, became the Uttar Pradesh Motor \vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1985, U. P. Act No. 10 of 1985. As of November, 1997 the posi tion stood that neither the driver nor the conductor, for the seat they occupy, can be the subject-matter for the computation of tax. THIS position is accepted by the Stand ing Counsel, U. P, Mr. U. K. Pandey.