RAMI REDDY Vs. R T O GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, T. Kami Reddy, is the owner of a contract carriage doing transport business as Guntur. As and when a tourists' party or a pilgrimage party approaches him for hiring his vehicle, he gives it for hire for a fixed sum. A group of piligrims from Lalupuram of Gumur and nearby village Tallur approached him tnrough a contractor by name Sambaiah for carrying 61 passengers as a group to lirupathi and bring them back. He applied tor a special permit to the Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, under Section 63 (6) ot the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 for a period of three days from 5th June, 1977 to 7th June, 1977. Accordingly, a permit was given to him. According to the permit, the vehicle has to go from Tallur to Tirupathi via Guntur and return from Tirupathi to Tallur via. Guntur. The petitioner has submitted a list of 55 members of the contract to Tirupathi and vehicle it was returning it was checked at Ongole on 7th June, 1977. The Statement given by the passengers revealed that 23 persons boarded the bus at Tallur, 9 persons at Guntur and 23 persons at Lalupuram. On the ground that three different parties were picked up at three different places and that, according to the conditions of the permit, the entire party had to be picked up only at Tallur and not at Guatur, and thus the vehicle was used as a stage carriage and not as a contract carriage the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, directed the petitioner to pay the difference ot tax of Rs. 6,420-25ps. Questioning that order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) It is submitted by Shri Ramkoti, the learned counsed for the petitioner, that all the passengers that were found in the bus at the time of the check were members of the contract party, whose list was submitted to the Regional Transport Officer and that all the members of that party need be picked up only at Tallur but there was no such condition in the permit that the entire party should be picked up at Tallur.

(3.) I have seen the Special permit that was granted to the petitioner under Section 63 (6) of the Act. It does not provide that the entire party should be picked up only at Tallur. Apart from that, Section 63 (6) says that the Regional Transport Officer may grant a special permit for carrying passengers tor hire under a contract for the use of the vehicle as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. Therefore, what inessential is that the vebicle cannot pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract. It does not provide that the passengers included in the contract cannot be picked up or set down along the line of route. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Guntur, dated 26th August, 1977, claiming the difference of tax of Rs. 6,420-25 ps., from the petitioner is clearly invalid. Hence, it is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without costs.