The central legal point established in the judgment is that vehicles owned by Companies or Societies and used for their trade or business purposes fall under the category of private service vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed.

.3. It has been stated that the petitioners in the above writ petitions are either societies, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or Companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners have a number of vehicles, registered in their names and provided for the use of their officers. After purchasing the vehicles, the petitioners had temporarily registered the vehicles as private vehicles with temporary registration numbers. However, when the petitioners wanted to register the vehicles, the third respondent had informed the petitioners that the vehicles could not be registered as private vehicles and that they have to be registered only as private transport vehicles. Based on a communication issued by the Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, dated 20.5.2000, wherein it has been stated that the vehicles with the seating capacity of more than six and registered in the name of the Company come under the purview of Sections 2(33) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in view of a circular issued by the Government of India, dated 13. 2000. In the communication of the Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, dated 20.5.2000, it has been stated that whenever such vehicles are registered in the names of the companies, the intention is obvious that these vehicles would necessarily be used for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with the trade or business, otherwise than for hire or rent. As such, the usage of the vehicles attract the provisions of Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for their use as private service vehicles. Therefore, the necessary application forms have to be obtained and processed at the time of such registration. Such vehicles should be registered only as private vehicles and necessary permits are required, under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. It has been further stated that the consequence of such registration as private transport vehicles is that they have to undergo periodical inspections for obtaining fitness certificates and they should either carry white number plates or yellow number plates as prescribed by the rules. The vehicles can be used only in the specified areas and routes. Since the vehicles have been purchased by the Societies or the Companies for the personal use of their officers, it cannot be said that they are being used or that they will be used for carrying persons for or in connection with the trade or business of the petitioners.

5. It has also been stated that the communication of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport Chennai, dated 20.5.2000, is prima facie erroneous as it has been wrongly assumed that every vehicle, with a seating capacity of more than six bought by a Company or a Society and registered in its name would be necessarily used only for the purpose of transporting persons for or in connection with the trade or business of the said Company or society. Such a presumption is fallacious, as it is not based on facts and therefore, it is unsustainable in the eye of law.

.6. It has been further stated that if the vehicles are to be registered in terms of the communication, dated 20.5.2000, the petitioners would have to obtain the necessary permits for the use of the said vehicles. Obtaining of such permits would by itself attract the provisions of Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and the vehicles would have to be run only on daily basis on the specified routes. On the failure of the petitioners to comply with the said conditions, the permits are liable to be cancelled. The refusal of the third respondent to register the vehicles as private vehicles is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the third respond