Judgment

V. RAMASWAMI, J.

(1) WE granted leave and dismissed the appeals on 27/03/1992. Here are our reasons for the dismissal of the appeals. In Gur Bachan Singh v. Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur a division bench of the Allahabad High court in their order dated 19/04/1985 held on the ground that as the Transport Authority had granted contract carriage permits to their mini buses to be plied as motor cars, the operators were free to pick up individual passengers from one point to other. They further held that:

"THE definition of contract carriage was widened by the amendment made by Act 56 of 1969, as a result of which a contract carriage permit holder is entitled to carry passenger or passengers for hire or reward on a route or distance, or from one point to another. The only restriction is that it cannot stop between one point to the other to set down and pick up passengers. Ordinarily contract carriage permit holder is entitled to carry passengers from one point to another; but the extended meaning has made it clear that the contract carriage can be operated as motor carriage notwithstanding that the passengers pay separate fares. Thus it is apparent that separate individual passengers may be booked by the contract carriage holders from one point to another."

(2) IT appears that prior to 1971, Transport Authorities of U.P. State were generally granting contract carriage permits to Fiat and Ambassador cars for plying the same from one city to another. On the ground that there were pressing demands for introduction of mini buses the State Transport Authority by resolution dated 5/11/1971 decided to adopt a liberal policy of issuing contract carriage permits to mini buses permitting them to ply their vehicles on the various routes in the State. There appears to have been no definition of a mini bus at that time in any enactment. However, in the view that the mini buses which were constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons would fall either under the definition of omnibus or motor cars contract carriage permits were issued to these mini buses to be plied as motor cars. There is an obvious mistake in this view because the definition of motor car excluded transport vehicles. This decision was holding the field till the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 1/07/1989.

(3) WHEN another case came up before another division bench in the case of Samundra Devi v. State Transport Authority that bench in view of the change in the definition of contract carriage in the new Act referred the matter along with some other cases to a larger bench. The full bench held that the definition of contract carriage is exhaustive and would take into its fold all types of vehicles which are permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity and that maxi cab and motor cab would also be included in the definition of contract carriage notwithstanding that separate fares are charged from its passengers.

(4) MINI buses came to be defined in S. 2(d) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 as under:

"MINI bus means an omnibus which is constructed or adapted to carry not more than 35 persons excluding the driver;"

(5) THE question which thus arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the contract carriage permit holders of mini buses are entitled to pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey.

(6) IT would be convenient and necessary at this stage to refer to the relevant provisions under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). Broadly the public passenger transport motor vehicles recognised under the Act were motor cab and omnibus which in turn with reference to its user permit is either a contract carriage or a stage carriage. These descriptive vehicles were defined in the old Act as it was originally