The court established the validity of the classification of vehicles as transport and non-transport under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and upheld the liability to pay passenger tax for vehicles used for commercial purposes.

ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J.

The petitioner company has sought a direction to register its vehicles as non-transport vehicle after treating them as private service vehicles. It has also sought the setting aside of memo dated 14.09.2004 to the extent directions have been issued by the State Transport Controller, Haryana to register the vehicles in the name of the petitioner as transport vehicles. A writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside entry No.(x) in the notification issued by the Central Government on 05.11.2004 to the extent that only private service vehicles registered in the name of an individual to be treated as non-transport vehicle and a mandamus to respondents No.2 to 4 to renew the registration of the vehicle without charging any passenger tax and refund of tax already paid have also been sought.

2. The petitioner company registered in the name of DCM Textiles, Hisar is stated to have purchased three vehicles i.e. two Mahindra Boleros and one Eicher 10.90 L. These vehicles are used for fetching employees from their residence to the petitioner’s textile mill. It is the case of the petitioner that these vehicles are not being used for any hire or reward or for any commercial purpose and are therefore, covered under the definition of private service vehicle under Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. A challenge has been made to the notification dated 05.11.2004 to the extent of classifying only the vehicles owned by individuals to be non-transport vehicles while the vehicles which are owned by a company are treated as transport vehicles and subjected to passenger tax. The petitioner company had earlier preferred CWP No.1871 of 2015 claiming somewhat similar reliefs as claimed in the instant petition which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.09.2015 with a direction to respondents to pass a speaking order on the representation of the petitioner company. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the order dated 04.11.2015 passed by respondent No.5 which has also been impugned in this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner company has contended that the classification of private service vehicle as non-transport and transport vehicle by treating only the vehicles registered in the name of individuals and owned by an individual to be non-transport vehicle is contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inasmuch as the Act only refers to registration of vehicles in the name of an owner and does not make any distinction between an individual or any juristic person including a company. The term ‘owner’ includes both individual as well as company and cannot be further classified. Learned counsel also contended that the vehicles which are being used by the company are not for any commercial purpose but for the purpose of ferrying its employees from their places of residence to the mill. No fare is being charged from the employees. The vehicles are exclusively used by the company for its efficient functioning and not for any commercial purpose and therefore, it cannot be treated as a commercial purpose whatsoever, to exclude it from the classification of non-transport vehicle as in the case of an individual owner and such a classification in the notification dated 05.11.2004 is arbitrary and discriminatory and it is thus liable to be struck down.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for classifying the vehicles as public and private service vehicles as well as transport and non-transport vehicles. The Motor Vehicles Act read with the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 extended to the State of Haryana empowers the state government to levy passenger tax on the transport vehicles and therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot