2003 Supreme(Del) 536

High Court Of Delhi
DELHI PRADESH TAXI UNION - Appellant
Versus
DELHI PRADESH TAXI UNION - Respondent
Civil 7327 of 2000
Decided On : 05/30/2003

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(7) — Contract carriage — User as stage carriage — A tourist vehicle to which authorization granted under Motor Vehicles (All India Permit for Tourist Transport Operators) Rules, 1993 can ply in terms of conditions of permits and also in terms of rules 82 to 85 of the 1989 Rules and carry individual passengers from one point to the destination in accordance with the authorization but not allowed to use the same as a stage carriage to pick up and drop any passenger enroute.

       Held:

       Though, Rules 82 to 85A of 1989 Rules have not been made applicable to the vehicles which have been authorised to ply under the 1993 Rule, however, for the purposes of the present case, this Court is concerned only with the conditions imposed on a tourist vehicle by Rule 85 of the 1989 Rules. Besides other conditions, Rule 85 also provides that the permit holder shall cause to be prepared in respect of each trip a list, in triplicate of tourist passengers to be carried in the vehicle giving their full particulars such as the name, address, age and starting point and point of destination of each passenger. It also provides under Rule 85 (5) that the permit holder or his authorised agent shall issue a receipt to the hirer and the counter foil, of the same shall be kept available with him and produced on demand to the officers empowered to demand documents by or under the Act. Rule 85 (5) is in conformity with Section 2 (7) of the Act which defines a contact carriage to mean a motor-vehicle which carries passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract for the use of such a vehicle as a whole. Since a contract carriage under Section 2(7) could be engaged as a whole, Rule 85(5) provides for issue of a receipt to the hirer who engages the vehicle in terms of Section 2(7). While framing Rule 85(5), the rule making authority was conscious of the provisions of Section 2(7) of the Act that the vehicle could only be engaged as a whole under a contract for carrying passengers from one point to another on an agreed rate or sum and have, thereforee, consciously provided in the Rules that the receipt of such engagement will be issued to the hirer. By using the word hirer the rule making authority has consciously meant that the vehicle can be engaged by one person under a contract or on a fixed or agreed sum for carriage of passengers from one point to another and not by individual passengers. While Rule 85(1) find (5) of the 1989 Rules provide for a list of the passengers to be prepared giving their names, address, age etc and a receipt to be issued to the hirer who engages the vehicle under the contract, 1993 Rules only provide that the tourist vehicle shall carry a list of tourist passengers in respect of each trip. While framing 1993 Rules, the rule making authority has avoided to include the word hirer in the rules as has been done in the 1989 Rules. The conscious omission of the word hirer from the 1993 Rules would imply that a tourist vehicle which has been authorised to ply under the 1993 Rules could carry tourist passengers from one point to another and it is not necessary that the vehicle should be engaged as a whole by one person for carrying the passengers from one point to another. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the respondents that in case conditions mentioned in Rule 85 of the 1989 Rules were made applicable to the tourist vehicle authorised to ply under the 1993 Rules, the whole purpose of framing the 1993 Rules would be frustrated. Moreover, once the Central Government while framing 1993 Rules has provided that the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85A of the 1989 Rules would not apply to the authorization granted under the 1993 Rules a meaning has to be given to the same. In case Rule 85 is to apply even to tourist vehicles authorised under the 1993 Rules then Rule 1(4) of the 1993 Rules prescribing that the conditions prescribed in Rules 82 to 85A of the 1989 Rules shall not apply, becomes redundant. Non-applicability of Rule 85 of the 1989 Rules to the tourist vehicle aitthorised under 1993 Rules means that the tourist vehicle can carry individual passengers from one point to their destination. That interpretation may to some extent be contrary to Section 2(7) of the Act which provides for engaging the vehicle as a whole under a contract for carrying passengers from one point to another on a fixed sum but in view of Section 88(9) of the Act providing that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) but subject to any rules that may be made by the Central Government under Sub-section (14) the Transport Authority may for the purpose of promoting tourism, grant permits in respect of tourist vehicle and the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 etc. shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such permits has made the provisions subject to rules framed by the Central Government and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab Sikh Regular Motor Service, Moudhapara, Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and Anr. (supra) the permit having been made subject to Rules in terms of Section 88(9) of the Act, the Rules must override the provisions of the Statute.

       While, thereforee, agreeing with the respondents that a tourist vehicle to which an authorization has been granted under the 1993 Rules can ply in terms of the conditions of the permits granted to it and also in terms of the authorization given and Rules 82 to 85 of the 1989 Rules will not be applicable to said vehicles, however, this will not in any way authorise respondent No. 8 to use the said vehicle as a stage carriage and only relaxation to which they may be entitled is that the vehicle plying under the 1993 Rules may not be engaged as a whole under a contract for a fixed sum and the said respondent would be free to entertain individual passengers for carriage from Delhi Airport to their destination by charging the tariff fixed by the Airport Authority of India and without in any manner stopping enroute.

       While respondent No. 8 would be at liberty to entertain individual passengers for carriage from one point to another in accordance with the authorization, they will not in any manner use the same as a stage carriage and will not pick up and drop any passenger enroute.