Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 1994
  6. /
  7. January

Matador Malik Association vs The Deputy Transport ...

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|27 January, 1994

JUDGMENT / ORDER

JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents not to realize passenger tax from the Motor Cab Standard-20 vehicles of the members of the petitioner Union.
2. We have heard Shri A.D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioner and we find no merit in this petition.
3. The petitioner is a registered Union under the control and supervision of which the members of the Union operate their vehicles and they have been granted Motor Cab permits by the State Transport Authority, U.P. Lucknow. It is alleged in para 2 of the petition that all the vehicles of the members of the petitioner union have a sitting capacity of 7 persons including the driver. A list of the members of the petitioner's Union is Annexure 2 to the petition. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicles of the members of the petitioner's Union are not stage carriage and hence they are not liable to pay passenger tax under the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962. He has also contended that the said vehicles have a sitting capacity of only six passengers excluding the driver and hence they are not stage carriages within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Adhiniyam.
4. The definition of 'stage carriage' in the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 in Section 2(g) is materially different from the definition of 'stage carriage' in Section 2(40) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The definition of stage carriage in the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 is as follows:
2(g) 'stage carriage' means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six passenger (excluding the driver), and 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 and includes any omnibus when used as contract carriage'.
On the other hand the definition of 'stage carriage' in Section 2(40) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is as follows:
40. "stage carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey.
5. It may be noticed, on a comparison of the two definitions of 'stage carriage', that the definition in the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam is wider than that in the Motor Vehicles Act. Whereas under the latter a vehicle would be a stage carriage only if it is constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers (excluding the driver) under the former a vehicle would be a stage carriage even if it is not so constructed or adapted provided it is actually carrying more than six passengers. However, if it is actually carrying more than six passengers (excluding the driver) for hire or reward at separate fares paid for by individual passengers it becomes a stage carriage for the purposes of Section 2(g) of the Yatri Kar Adhiniyam. Hence merely because the vehicles of the petitioners members having a sitting capacity only 6 passengers it does not necessarily mean that they are excluded from the definition of stage carriage in the Yatri Kar Adhiniyam.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been urged that the vehicle of the petitioner have been registered as contract carriage and not stage carriages. There is no plea in this connection anywhere in the petition. Hence we can not accept this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Thus there is no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. However, it is open to the petitioners' members to file an appeal if any order of assessment of passenger tax is made against them and the said appeal will be decided in accordance with law.
7.A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Matador Malik Association vs The Deputy Transport ...

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
27 January, 1994
Judges
  • V Khare
  • M Katju