1991 Supreme(All) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. KHANNA, R. A. SHARMA, R. R. K. TRIVEDI
BRIJENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, U.P.LUCKNOW - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 25646 Of 1990
Decided On : 05/30/1991
M.M.Ghildiyal
The new definition of contract carriage in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was exhaustive and took into its fold all types of vehicles permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - CONTRACT CARRIAGE - PICKING UP INDIVIDUAL PASSENGERS - NEW DEFINITION - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY TO MINI BUSES - HELD, MINI BUSES CANNOT PICK UP INDIVIDUAL PASSENGERS AND CAN ONLY RUN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NEW DEFINITION OF CONTRACT CARRIAGE AS GIVEN IN THE NEW MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are Mini Bus contract carriage permit-holders, challenged the Transport Authority's decision not to allow them to pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey. They argued that the new definition of contract carriage in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, did not prohibit them from doing so.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the new definition of contract carriage in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was exhaustive and took into its fold all types of vehicles permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity. The court further held that the petitioners' mini buses could not be included in the definition of either maxi cab or motor cab and, therefore, could not pick up individual passengers.
Issues: 1. Whether the new definition of contract carriage in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, prohibited mini buses from picking up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey. 2. Whether the petitioners' mini buses could be included in the definition of either maxi cab or motor cab.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The new definition of contract carriage in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was exhaustive and took into its fold all types of vehicles permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity. 2. The petitioners' mini buses could not be included in the definition of either maxi cab or motor cab.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and held that the mini buses could not pick up individual passengers and could only run in accordance with the new definition of contract carriage as given in the New Motor Vehicles Act.
( 1 ) THE question of law and facts involved in all these connected writ petitions are the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset have made a statement before us that they will address only one argument in all these writ petitions. Similar is the statement of Sri A. P. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is in these circumstances that these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment and writ petition No. 25646 of 1990 has been made the leading case with the consent of the parties and for the purposes of adjudication of these writ petitions the facts of the aforesaid writ petition No. 25646 of 1990 are being taken into consideration.
( 2 ) THE main controversy which is involved in all these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who are Mini Bus contract carriage permit-holders are entitled to pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey.
( 3 ) FOR the purposes of adjudicating the controversy in the present writ petitions it would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter described as the "old Act") and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter described as the "new Act" ).
( 4 ) THE old Act recognised the following types of motor vehicles :a) "motor Cab"- means any motor vehicle constructed, adopted or used to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward (S. 2 (15) ). B) "stage Carriage" means a motor vehicle carrying or adopted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fare paid by or for individual passenger either for the whole of the journey or for stages of the journey (S. 2 (29) ). C) "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 and from one point to another 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 : explanation : "contract Carriage" does not include a motor vehicle possession of which has been temporarily transferred in accordance with an expressed agreement of hire for use as a private vehicle and which is used in accordance with the term of such agreement. Note: Explanation was subsequently omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 Act No. 100 of 1956 with effect from 16-2-57"
( 5 ) THE definition of the term "contract carriage" was amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 56 of 1969) with effect from 2-3-1970 and after amendment it read as under : "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 of sum:- (I) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (ii) from one point to another and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along with line of the route passenger not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passenger may pay separate fare. " it appears that in practice even though the Transport Authorities started granting contract carriage permits to mini buses but in fact these mini buses were rarely plied as contract carriages but were being plied as stage carriages on even notified routes. Strict enforcement of the conditions of permits were enforced in the State of U. P. which resulted in a large number of minibus operators being thrown out of operation. The State Legislature, therefore, enacted U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976. It will be useful to reproduce the statement of object and reasons of the aforesaid Act :"a large number of "mini buses" were granted permits under th