Vehicles held were contract carriages.

ORDER :- By the order impugned in these writ petitions, the respondent, on the ground that the vehicles of the petitioners covered by All India tourist permits were found plying regularly as stage carriages has called upon the petitioners to pay the tax for the concerned quarters. The petitioners have uniformly contended before the respondent and they equally contend before this Court that their vehicles had been hired to the Travel Agents as a whole for fixed sums of money and if the Agents collected individual fares from each of the passengers, the petitioners could not be made liable for the same. They also contended before the respondent and contend here also that the collection of separate fares is not prohibited under S.2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act, when it defines. 'contract carriage', and their vehicles plied between the two points without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of the routes passengers not included in the contract. These contentions were not countenanced by the respondent and the grounds expressed by the respondent for mulcting the petitioners with the liability to pay tax are as follows :-

(1) The vehicles of the petitioners were found carrying individual passengers, who had paid separate fares.

(2) That the passengers had not contracted to use the vehicle as a whole has not been disputed by the petitioners.

2. Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the definition of 'contract carriage' found in S.2(3) of the Act does not inhibit the collection of separate fares from the passengers and further the petitioners have been throughout placing their case on the basis that the vehicles had been hired to the Travel Agents as a whole for fixed sums of money and the statement in the impugned orders that the petitioners have not disputed the allegation that the passengers had not contracted to use the vehicle as a whole is a patently wrong statement and further if the criteria to be adopted to distinguish a 'contract carriage' from a 'stage carriage' as set down in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1965) 1 SCR 841 : (AIR 1965 SC 991) is taken note of, the petitioners could be mulcted with the liability to pay tax on the basis that their vehicles were plied as 'stage carriages.'

3. Section 2(3) of the Act defines 'contract carriage' as follows :-

"'contract carriage' means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract, expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum -

(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distances, or

(ii) from one point to another, and in either case without stopping to pick up, or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract, and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares."

Section 2(29) defines 'stage carriage' as follows :-

"'Stage carriage' means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey."

In the pronouncement of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the distinction between the two has been brought out in the following lines :

"By S.2(3) a contract carriage is defined as a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers on hire or reward under a contract from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of that route passengers not included in the contract. A stage carriage is defined as a motor vehicle carrying or adopted to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. The distinction between the two is this : the contract carriage is enga