Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
V.Govindarajulu - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur - Respondent
W.P.No. 15820 of 1984 and etc.
Decided On : 08-06-85
Advocates Appeared :
M/s. E.P.K. Sikhamani, S. Venkata Reddy,K N. Jwala
Held: The definition of contract carriage, under section 2 (3) of the Act is plain and the language is not so elastics and we so as to bring within its sweep a situation never intended by the Legislature. The dominant factor under the definition that determines whether a transport vehicle is used as a contract carriage or as a stage carriages is whether the vehicle is hired as a whether the vehicle is hired as whole for a fixed or agreed sum under a prior contract, express or implied, by a single person or party with the owner of the vehicle. If once a single contract is entered into expressly or impliedly for the use of the vehicle as a whole from the mere fact that the leader of the contracting party or on of the persons is the pay collected fares from the passengers, which very often in vogue, the vehicle cannot be said to have been used as a stage carriage. If there was no single contract with the owner in respect at the vehicle and if no person or leader of the party could exercise full Control over the vehicle and several passengers had separately contracted for the use of the vehicle and paid individual fares, the transport vehicle used in such manner falls within the definition of stage carriage and not contract carriage. Tax is levied on the basis of the use of the transport vehicle and not on the nature of the permit held by the owner in respect of the vehicle and the power contained in Sec. 3 read with section 4 of the Taxation Act is sufficient to enable the State Government to levy the tax from time when the nature or the use of the Vehicle is changed and the class of the motor vehicle is thereby altered. There is no prohibition in the Act for the levy and collection of tax as authorised under section 3 (1) of the Taxation Act in cases where action is taken for the breach of any of the conditions of the permit against the holder of the permit under section 60 of the Act. The two sections are quite different-one for the user of the vehicle and the other for the breach of the conditions of the permit.
In the instant case it is the clear and categorical finding of the Transport Authorities that there was no single contract with the owner of the contract carriage for the use of the vehicle as a whole and individual fares were collected from each passenger. On such a finding, the only right conclusion applying the aforesaid principles that can be reasonably reached is the contract carriage was unauthorisedly used as a stage carriage and thereby attracted the levy of tax as a stage carriage.
W.P.No. 6127 of 70 ;W.A.No. 131 of 1972; AIR 1977 AP 227 (FB) Approved.
W P. No. 15820/1984:-Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction calling for the records relating to the Demand notice issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Anantapur in RC. No. 1343/A8/19841 dated 8-11-1984 and quash the same.
( 1 ) THESE cases raise a vexed question of considerable importance, frequently faced by the transport authorities and owners of public service vehicles and agitated before the Courts. The question is when is a contract carriage as defined under Section 2 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (for brief the Act) said to have been used as a stage carriage as defined under section 2 (29) of the Act in order to attract the levy and demand of the increased rate of tax for a stage carriage as notified under section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (for brief the Taxation Act ). Is it necessary for the levy of tax as a stage carriage that the owner of the public service vehicle should hold a valid permit to ply it as a stage carriage? When one of the cases, W. P. No. 15820 of 1984 came up for hearing before Jeevan Reddy and Sardar Ali Khan, JJ. , the learned Judges felt that the course of judicial authority on the question had not been steady but teetered particularly after the Division Bench decision of this Court in W. P. No. 3714 of 1982 and it was therefore not only desirable but necessary to have an authoritative pronouncement on this question by a Full Bench of this Court. Accordingly they referred this case and cases involving similar question to the Full Bench. That is how these cases have been posted now before us.
( 2 ) BEFORE we proceed to answer the question, the short and relevant facts provoking the vexed question may usefully be set out : The contract carriage AAA 1999 was found carrying 49 adult passengers in all from Tadipatri to Anantapur. It was stopped and checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Anantapur on 25-9-1984 at 4. 00 P. M. , near Singanamala tank on Anantapur - Tadipatri road. All the passengers boarded the vehicle at Tadipatri bus-stand. They paid an individual fare of Rs. 5. 00 each. All the passengers did not belong to single party and each was travelling on his own word. The trip sheet maintained in the bus did not indicate any contract, express or implied, between the passengers and the owner of the contract carriage. Therefore, the Motor Vehicles Inspector came to the conclusion that the vehicle was misused as a stage carriage by collecting individual fares. On the basis of the check report submitted by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Anantapur, the Regional Transport Officer issued a show cause notice to the registered owner of the contract carriage AAA 1999 to show cause within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice as to why the maximum tax of Rs. 11,500. 00 applicable to a stage carriage should not be collected from him for the quarter ending with 30-9-1984. The registered owner submitted his explanation. He stated in his explanation that the Regional Transport Authority had issued a notice for taking action under section 60 of the Act for the said alleged offence and requested the Regional Transport Officer to await the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. The Regional Transport Officer on a consideration of the report of the checking officer found that the contract carriage had been misused as a stage carriage holding that all the passengers that boarded the contract carriage pad individual fare of Rs. 5. 00, that there was no express or implied contract between the passengers and the contract carriage owner and that the list of passengers maintained did not tally with the passengers that were actually found travelling in the bus. The registered owner was therefore directed to pay the difference of Rs. 2750. 00 for the quarter ending 30-9-1984 being the different is tax payable when the vehicle is used is a contract carriage and tax payable when the vehicle is used as a stage carriage. Aggrieved against the said decision, the owner of the contract carriage filed the writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) BROADLY stated the question that t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
