# Roshanlal v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 226
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 273 of 2003
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roshanlal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-39981
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1997- Act
1997- Article I- words and phases -
stage carriage- where there is absence
of prior contract between the Passenger-
and vehicle owner- the vehicle of stage
carriage-
where
the
passenger,
individually pay the rent as per distance
but where is vehicle run under contract
basis- is a contract carriage- hence the
Petitioner being operator of Contract
carriage-
liable
to
pay
the
tax
accordingly the petitioner liable to pay
the tax as per demand of authorities.

Held- Para 6
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited our attention to a Full Bench
decision in Brijendra Chaudary vs. State
Transport Authority (AIR 1991 Alld.
300). This decision in fact supports the
view which we are taking in this case. In
para 8 of the said Full Bench judgment it
has been held that in the case of stage
carriage
there
is
absence
of
prior
contract by the passenger or passengers
for the carriage to be used as a whole for
fixed or agreed sum. Instead, in case of
stage carriage when it is boarded by the
passengers on a route they pay for the
distance they propose to travel. Infact ,
this Full Bench decision also supports the
view, which we are taking that the
petitioners'
vehicle
is
not
a
stage
carriage but is contract carriage. This is
also the view of the Supreme Court in
Roshanlal vs. State of U.P. and others
(AIR 1965 SC 991).
Case law discussed:
AIR 1991 300 (Alld)
AIR 1965- SC- 991

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
has to incur many expenditures which are
not due under any legal obligation but to
facilitate the business and for commercial
expediency vide M/s Shahzadanand Vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax 21977
UPTC 48 (SC). Hence these expenditures
made for commercial expediency even
without any legal obligation are allowable
as business expenditures under section 37.

7. Thus there is no force in the
appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 273 of 2003

Shambhu Nath Patel

...Petitioner
Versus
The Taxation Officer, Allahabad and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.R. Dube

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Motor Vehicle Taxation Act 1997- Act
1997- Article I- words and phases -
stage carriage- where there is absence
of prior contract between the Passenger-
and vehicle owner- the vehicle of stage
carriage-
where
the
passenger,
individually pay the rent as per distance
but where is vehicle run under contract
basis- is a contract carriage- hence the
Petitioner being operator of Contract
carriage-
liable
to
pay
the
tax
accordingly the petitioner liable to pay
the tax as per demand of authorities.

Held- Para 6
Learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited our attention to a Full Bench
decision in Brijendra Chaudary vs. State
Transport Authority (AIR 1991 Alld.
300). This decision in fact supports the
view which we are taking in this case. In
para 8 of the said Full Bench judgment it
has been held that in the case of stage
carriage
there
is
absence
of
prior
contract by the passenger or passengers
for the carriage to be used as a whole for
fixed or agreed sum. Instead, in case of
stage carriage when it is boarded by the
passengers on a route they pay for the
distance they propose to travel. Infact ,
this Full Bench decision also supports the
view, which we are taking that the
petitioners'
vehicle
is
not
a
stage
carriage but is contract carriage. This is
also the view of the Supreme Court in
Roshanlal vs. State of U.P. and others
(AIR 1965 SC 991).
Case law discussed:
AIR 1991 300 (Alld)
AIR 1965- SC- 991

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel.

2. The petitioner has prayed for a
writ
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondents to charge additional tax at the
rate given in the proviso to Article 1 (a) of
Fourth Schedule of the Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act, 1997 and for a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents not
to compel the petitioner to deposit
additional tax at the rate given in Fourth
Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Taxation
Act, 1997.

3. The petitioner is a registered
owner of a bus, which carries the
staff/employees
of
Indian
Farmer
Fertilizer Cooperative Limited, Phulpur,
district Allahabad from their houses in
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Shambhu Nath Patel V. The Taxation Officer, Allahabad and another 227
Allahabad city to the factory premises in
Phulpur, which is about 35 Km. away
from Allahabad City. In this connection
they have entered into an agreement with
IFFCO, a copy of which is enclosed as
Annexure 1 to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Vehicle of the petitioner
is a Stage Carriage and not Contract
carriage and hence additional tax should
be charged in accordance with Article 1
of the Fourth Schedule of Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act, 1997 and not in accordance
with Article 5. We do not agree with this
submission. In our opinion the petitioner's
vehicle is not stage carriage but is a
contract carriage. Section 2 (7) of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 defines contract
carriage as under :

"(7) "contract carriage means a
motor vehicle which carries a passenger
or passengers for hire or reward and is
engaged under a contract whether express
or implied for the use of such vehicle as a
whole for the carriage of passengers
mentioned therein and entered into by a
person with a holder of a permit in
relation to such vehicle or any person
authorized by him in this behalf on a fixed
or an agreed rate or sum -

(a) on a time basis, whether or not
with reference to any route or
distance, or
(b) from one point to another,
and in either case, without stopping to
pick up or set down passengers not
included into contract any where during
the journey and includes -
(i) a maxi cab and
(ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that
that separate fares are charged
for its passengers."
Section 2 (40) of the Motor Vehicles Act
defines ' stage carriage' as under :

"Stage carriage' means a motor vehicle
constructed or adopted 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.

Under section 2 (40) of the Motor
Vehicles Act stage carriage means a
motor vehicle, which carries passengers
for hire or reward at separate fare paid by
or for individual passenger means that for
the vehicle to be stage carriage passengers
must pay fare. The words ' at separate fare
said by or for individual passenger'
individually. Thus ordinarily the buses,
which run between different towns, are '
stage carriages as every passenger has to
pay for his own ticket separately.

5. On the other hand 'contract
carriage' is one where the entire bus is
taken on contract from the owner for
certain amount of money and it is not the
individual passengers who pay the fare.
Thus, for example when a person takes a
bus for a marriage party from one city to
another, this will be a contract carriage.
Similarly when a bus is taken on contract
for carrying the workers from their
residence to the factory and back, this
again is not stage carriage but a contract
carriage because passengers are not
charged
separately
or
individually.
Usually it is the company, which provides
the bus service, as an amenity to the
workers and it is not that the passengers
have to buy tickets individually.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Thus we are of the opinion that the
petitioner's bus is a "contract carriage"
and not "stage carriage".

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited our attention to a Full Bench
decision in Brijendra Chaudary vs.
State Transport Authority (AIR 1991
Alld. 300). This decision in fact supports
the view which we are taking in this case.
In para 8 of the said Full Bench judgment
it has been held that in the case of stage
carriage there is absence of prior contract
by the passenger or passengers for the
carriage to be used as a whole for fixed or
agreed sum. Instead, in case of stage
carriage when it is boarded by the
passengers on a route they pay for the
distance they propose to travel. Infact, this
Full Bench decision also supports the
view, which we are taking that the
petitioners' vehicle is not a stage carriage
but is contract carriage . This is also the
view of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal
vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 1965
SC 991).

For the reasons given above the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.

There will be however, no order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 328 of 1999

State of U.P. and others
...Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Pratap Singh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sabhajit Yadav
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N. Singh

Construction of India, Article 39(a)-
Equal pay for equal work- Assistant
Machine operators of set- claimed same
pay scale of machine man off set-- both
performing same duty were given the
same pay scale at the recommendation
of 2nd pay commission report- even
samta samiti recommended the same
pay scale of Rs.1200/-1800/- for the
first time vide order dated 31.7.96 pay
scale of machine man off set enhanced -
hence is a case of removal of anomaly in
pay scale of Assistant Machine operator
of set.

Held- para 20

In the present case the parity is not
being claimed with the employees of
another Government but discrimination
meted out to the petitioners in respect of
employee of the same department who
were holding the equivalent post and
discharging the same duties is being
sought to be redressed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1989 SC-19
AIR 1990 SC-334
AIR 1995 SC-809