The main legal point established in the judgment is that vehicles used exclusively for transporting employees should be taxed as omnibuses if they do not meet the essential requirements of a contract carriage as defined in the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) IN these three appeals, the question that arises for determination is whether an omnibus engaged by an employer for transporting exclusively his employees between their nous is and his factory, for which service he (the employer) collects fares from his employees, should be treated as a contract carriage or merely an omnibus for the purpose of levy of tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE appellants who were the writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the Companies) are Govt Companies in which all the shares are held by the State. Their factories are located in the outskirts at Bangalore. . Each of them has been maintaining a flcet of omnibuses to provide transport facility to its employees between their houses and its factory. For providing such transport facility, they collect fares from their respective employees by deducting such fares from their salaries or wages. Such fares are small compared to the cost of providing such transport facility and the companies subsidise their respective transport services.

( 3 ) FOR these vehicles, the Companies had obtained contract carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Regional transport Authority which granted such permits, had endorsed on each of the permits three conditions, one of which read as follows :" Only the bona fide Employees of the Factory and no other than these employees should be carried. "the taxing authority has been levying taxes on these v hides on the footing that they are contract carriages. The Companies made applications to the RTA, Bangalore, and Commr of Transport to alter the classification of 'these vehicles from contract carriages to omnibuses. Those applications were rejected by them. When such orders had been made by the RTA, the companies had preferred appeals to the Commr of Transport who dismissed them. The Companies presented writ petitions 542 of 1972 and 2124 and 2180 of 1973, assailing th- decisions of the Regional Transport Officer and the commissioner of Transport and had prayed for issue of writs in the nature of mandamus directing the RTO to classify these vehicl is as 'omnibuses'.

( 4 ) JAGANNATHA Shetty, J. , by his common order dt. 29-5-1974, dismissed the writ petitions holding that the taxing authority was justified in treating these vehicles as contract carriages for the purpose of the Taxation Act. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, companies have preferred thes appeals.

( 5 ) MR. P. R. RAMACHANDRA Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant in wa. 417 of 1974, addressed the leading arguments. Mr. B. P. Bopanna, learned Counsel for the appellants in WAs. 413 and 414 of 1974, adopted those arguments and supplemented them. The learned Govt Advocate argued in support of the; decision of the learned single Judge.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contention of learned Counsel, it is necessary to set out the relevant portions of the Taxation Act ana the motor Vehicles Act.

( 7 ) SEC. 3 of the Taxation Act which is the charging Section, provides that a tax at the rates specified in Part-A of the Schedule shall be levied pn all motor vehicles suitable for use on roads, kept in the State,

( 8 ) THE relevant portions of Item 4 in Pant-A of the Schedule to the taxation Act, as it stood prior to 1-7-1972, read as follows :

( 9 ) ITEM 4a in Part 'a' of the Schedule to the Taxation Act,, inserted by the, Mysore (Kamataka) Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1972, which came into force on 1-7-1972, reads: 4a. Motor vehicles plying for hire or reward used for transport of passengers in respect of which contract carriage permits have been issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 and permitted to carry more than five persons including the driver, for every passenger which the vehicle is permitted to carry 100-00 150-00

( 10 ) ITEM 7 in Part 'a' of the Schedule to the Taxation Act reads; 7. Omnibuses (other tha