# Smt. Vidya Gupta & others v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 790
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001
- **Bench:** S.K. Sen, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vidya-gupta-others-v-state-of-u-p-others-39997
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1997-
Section 6 (I-A)- whether the State is
competent
to
enact
the
provisions
regarding the liability of vehicle owners
to pay additional tax if used on public
place carrying 9 passengers including
the driver? - held- 'Yes'

In our view the aforesaid decision does
not assist the petitioners for one simple
reason that in the instant case, the Act
and the Rules as already noted above
provide safeguards, both to the State
against the evasion of tax and as also to
the bonafied owner or operator to
surrender the vehicle by following the
procedure under Section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 22 of the Rules to claim
and obtain a certificate of non- user
from
the
Prescribed
Authority
and
thereby to be relieved from payment of
tax or additional tax. Accordingly the
legislation imposing tax or additional
taxes does not become arbitrary or ultra
vires. The decisions relied upon by the
writ petitioners, in our view , do not
really assist them. The reasons assigned
by learned Advocate General in his
submissions distinguishing the decisions
cited by learned counsel for the writ
petitioners, in our view , cannot be said
to be without any substance.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1975 SC-17, AIR 1962 SC-1406,AIR 1980
SC 1547 AIR 2000 SC-2175, 2002 ALJ -2627,
1992 (supply II) SCC-436, 1972 (83) ITR 678,
1980 (124) IT 40 (SC)

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
claimant, Brij Pal Singh. After the
payment has been made, the appellant-
insurance company will be entitled to
recover the entire amount from the owner
of the vehicle, namely, Pramod Kumar
respondent no. 2, by taking proceedings in
accordance with Section 174 of the Motor
Vehicles Act or by any other mode
permissible in law.
---------
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10TH SEPEMBER,
2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1025 of 2001
(Tax)

Smt. Vidya Gupta & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri C .P. Ghildyal
Sri H.P. Dubey
Sri A.R. Dubey
Sri A.D. Saunder
Sri B.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.C. Misra, Adv. General
Sri S.P. Keserwani
Sri Ranvijai Singh
S.C.

U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1997-
Section 6 (I-A)- whether the State is
competent
to
enact
the
provisions
regarding the liability of vehicle owners
to pay additional tax if used on public
place carrying 9 passengers including
the driver? - held- 'Yes'

In our view the aforesaid decision does
not assist the petitioners for one simple
reason that in the instant case, the Act
and the Rules as already noted above
provide safeguards, both to the State
against the evasion of tax and as also to
the bonafied owner or operator to
surrender the vehicle by following the
procedure under Section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 22 of the Rules to claim
and obtain a certificate of non- user
from
the
Prescribed
Authority
and
thereby to be relieved from payment of
tax or additional tax. Accordingly the
legislation imposing tax or additional
taxes does not become arbitrary or ultra
vires. The decisions relied upon by the
writ petitioners, in our view , do not
really assist them. The reasons assigned
by learned Advocate General in his
submissions distinguishing the decisions
cited by learned counsel for the writ
petitioners, in our view , cannot be said
to be without any substance.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1975 SC-17, AIR 1962 SC-1406,AIR 1980
SC 1547 AIR 2000 SC-2175, 2002 ALJ -2627,
1992 (supply II) SCC-436, 1972 (83) ITR 678,
1980 (124) IT 40 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Sen, C.J.)

1. In the writ petition no. 1025 of
2001 (Tax) and in all the connected writ
petitions, common questions of facts and
law are involved and, therefore, they are
being disposed of by this common
judgment. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
1025 of 2001 (Tax) is being treated as the
leading case, and the final decision in all
other connected writ petitions will be
governed by the decision in this writ
petition (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
1025 of 2001 (Tax).

2. The writ petitioners are stage
carriage operators. The petitioners are
challenging the validity of amendment in
Section 6 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Vidya Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others 791
Taxation Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act') whereby Section (1-A), has
been added to it on the grounds that (a)
the State Legislature is not competent to
make this enactment, (b) the amendment
is repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 as well as the Act, (c) assent of the
President under Article 254 (2) of the
Constitution of India has not been
obtained, and (d) the impugned enactment
is punitive in nature.

3. It has been contended on behalf of
the writ petitioners that tax ' under the Act
has been enacted by the State Legislature
in exercise of power conferred by Entries
56 to 57 of the State List of VIIth
Schedule to the Constitution. Entry 56
relates to tax on goods and passengers
carried road or on in land waterways
whereas Entry 57 relates to tax on
vehicles- whether mechanically propelled
or not, suitable for use on roads, including
tram-car subject to the provisions of Entry
35 of List III. The case of the petitioners
is that the tax on Motor Vehicles is
compensatory in nature and revenue
earned by such imposition of tax is spent
by the State in the construction and
maintenance of roads to facilitate use of
public place by motor vehicles. Thus,
Entries 56 and 57 empower the State
Government to legislate on the subject in
case of use of public place by a vehicle.
However, these entries do not empower
the State Government to levy additional
tax. The words 'passenger carried' used in
Entry 56 presuppose use of public road
and the words 'tax on vehicles whether
mechanically propelled or not suitable for
use on roads' pre suppose use of vehicles
on roads. According to the petitioners,
this view is fortified by decisions of apex
court in Dalmia Cement Bharat Ltd. vs.
The Regional Transport Officer Bellary
(Mysore)- AIR 1975 SC-17 and State of
Mysore and others vs. Sundaram Moto-s
Pvt. Ltd.- AIR 1980 SC 148.

4. Words 'suitable for use on road'
came up for consideration before the
Supreme Court in Automobile Transport
(Rajasthan) Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan
and others (AIR 1962 SC-1406) and it
was held in that case that the words
'suitable for use on roads' describe the
kind to vehicles and not their condition.
They exclude from the entry form,
machinery,
aeroplane,
railways
etc.,
whether mechanically propelled or not.
Apex court reiterated this view in
Travancore Tea Co. Ltd., etc. v. State of
Kerala and others-AIR 1980 SC-1547.

5. Therefore, the petitioners have
come before us with a case that user of
road is condition precedent for levy of the
tax under Entries 56 and 57, referred to
above. They have further drew our
attention to a decision of the apex court in
State of Gujrat v. Kaushin Bhai K. Patel-
AIR 2000 SC-2175.

6. Therefore, it was argued that it is
amply clear that tax under the provisions
of the Act, as amended, cannot be validly
levied merely on possession of a motor
vehicle, which is not used in public place.
The imposition of such tax is clearly
beyond the competence of the State
Legislature
and
against
the
power
conferred on it by virtue of Entries 56 and
57, referred to above. Even otherwise, the
impugned enactment is repugnant to
Section 6 of the Act and, therefore, the
same is void ab initio.

7. According to the petitioners,
control of transport vehicles is provided in
Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act,
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
1988 Section 66 whereof clearly provides
that no owner of a motor vehicle shall use
or permit the use of the vehicle as a
transport vehicle in any public place
whether or not such vehicle is actually
carrying any passengers or goods have in
accordance with the conditions of a
permit granted or countersigned by a
Regional or State Transport Authority or
any prescribed authority or authorizing
him use of a vehicle in that public place in
the manner in which the vehicle is being
used. A person using a motor vehicle in a
public place, without a valid permit, can
be severely punished- to the extent of
imprisonment under Section 192-A of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The petitioners
have, therefore, sought the relief of
declaring Section (1-A) of the amended
Act as well as Section 6 of the Act to be
ultravires.

8. We have heard S/sri C.P. Ghildyal,
H.P. Dubey, A.R. Dubey, A.D. Saunder
and B. B. Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Sri S.C. Misra,
learned Advocate General, Sri S.P.
Kesarwani
and
Sri Ranvijai Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State -
respondents.

9. While submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioners have already
been stated in the foregoing paragraphs of
this judgment, it was contended by the
learned
Advocate
General
that
the
amended provision (1-A) of the Act is
perfectly within the four corners of the
legislative Entry 57 of List II of the
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. He
drew our attention to Travancore Tea Co.
Ltd. (supra) and contended that similar
provision contained in Kerala Motor
Vehicle Taxation Act (24 of 1963) came
up for consideration before the apex court
wherein, while explaining the use of the
expression' vehicle used or kept for use',
the apex court upheld the levy to be in
conformity with the powers of State
Legislature under Entry 57, List 11 of
Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It
was specifically observed by the apex
court that the said provision safeguards
the revenue of the State by relieving it
from the burden of providing that the
vehicle was used or kept for use on the
public roads of the State and at the same
time, the interest of bonafide owner is
safeguarded by enabling him to claim and
obtain a certificate of non user from the
prescribed
authority.
He
further
contended that so far as this State is
concerned, in the Act in question,
safeguards are provided under Section 12
of the Act read with Rule 22 of the U.P.
Motor Vehicle Taxation Rules, 1998. He
also brought to our notice that validity of
section 6 of the Act has already been
upheld in H.C. Misra v. State of U.P.-
2000 AALJ 2677. Sections 5 and 6 of the
Act clearly provide that every motor
vehicle falling within the purview of
liability of tax under section 4 is liable to
pay additional tax. In support of this
contention, he placed implicit reliance on
the decisions in Sundaram Finance Ltd.
vs.
Regional
Transport
Officer-1992
(supp-2) SCC-436, C.I.T v. Piyara Singh1980 (124) IT-40 (SC). In C.I.T. V.
Piyara Singh it has been held that illegal
business is business and income from
such business is liable to tax. According
to learned Advocate General, the ratio
laid down in the decisions cited on behalf
of the petitioners, is not, at all, applicable
to the facts of the present cases. Much
emphasis has been laid by the learned
counsel for the petitioners in State of
Gujrat (supra) but the said decision has
absolutely no application so far as the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Vidya Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others 793
present cases are concerned in view of the
provisions of Section 12 (2) of the Act
read with Rule 22 of the Rules framed
under the Act. In the Act and U.P. Motor
Vehicle Taxation Rules 1998, there is no
restriction or burden, at all. The operator
or owner of the motor vehicle, if he does
not want to use his motor vehicle, he is
required to surrender the registration
certificate and the token, if any and if the
same is surrendered as per procedure
provided under Rule 22 of the Rules read
with Section 12 (2) of the Act, the owner
shall not be liable to pay tax or additional
tax. Thus, surrender of all papers is the
only requirement under the provisions of
the Act and Rules to show non-use of the
vehicle and exemption from liability to
pay tax and additional tax.

10.

We
have
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the writ petitioners and also of the
learned Advocate General for the State.

11. The amended provision of
Section 1-A of the Act, for the sake of
convenience, is being quoted herein
below :-

"(1-A): Save as otherwise provided
in this Act no motor vehicle registered or
adapted, to carry more than nine persons
excluding the driver shall be kept for use
without a permit under section 66 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 unless there
has been paid in respect thereof in
addition to the tax payable under section 4
an additional tax twenty five percent more
than the additional tax payable in respect
of that category of vehicles under clause
(a) of Article V of the Fourth Schedule:

Provided that the provisions of this
sub section shall not apply to a Motor
Vehicle refered to in sub section (3) of
Section 66 of the said Act."

12. The Statement of objects and
Reasons
necessitating
the
impugned
amendment read as follows :

"The Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle
Taxation Act, 1997 (U.P. Act No. 21 of
1997) has been enacted to provide for the
imposition of tax in the State on Motor
Vehicles and additional tax on Motor
Vehicles engaged in the transport of
passengers and goods on hire. The said
Act does not provide for effecting control
over Motor Vehicles plying in the State
without a permit. The said Act, no doubt,
provides for restriction on the use of
transport vehicles within the State under a
temporary permit issued by an authority
having jurisdiction outside the State
without payment of tax or additional tax
under the said Act and in case of default
thereof, imposition of penalty equivalent
to ten times of tax and additional tax, but
there is no such provisions with respect to
transport
vehicles
operating
under
national or to tourist permit.

13. In our view, on proper
interpretation of the amended provision of
Section 1-A of the Act, there is no reason
to doubt that the same'squarely comes
within the scope of Entry 57, List 11 of
VII Schedule of the Constitution. The
aforesaid view finds support from the
judgment and decision in the case of
Travencore Tea Co. Ltd. etc. (supra)
wherein on consideration of similar
provision in Kerala Motor Vehicles
Taxation Act (24 of 1963) the Supreme
Court upheld the levy to be in conformity
with the powers on the State Legislature.
While upholding the same, the Supreme
Court also
observed that the said
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
provision safeguards the revenue of the
State by relieving it from the burden of
proving that the vehicle was used or kept
for use on the public roads of the State
and at the same time the interest of the
bonafide
owner
is
safeguarded
by
enabling him to claim and obtain a
certificate of non-user from the Prescribed
Authority. It would be apposite to quote
the relevant observation of the apex court,
which is as follows:-

"If the words 'used or kept for use in
the State are construed as used or kept for
use on the public roads of the State, the
Act would be in conformity with the
powers conferred on the State Legislature
under Entry 57 of List 11. If the vehicles
are suitable for use on public roads they
are liable to be taxed. In order to levy tax
on vehicles used or kept for use on public
roads of the State and at the same time to
avoid evasion of tax the legislature has
prescribed the procedure. Sub section (2)
of Section 3 provides that the registered
owner or any person having possession of
or control of a motor vehicle of which a
certificate of registration is current shall
for the purpose of this Act be deemed to
use or keep such vehicle for use in the
State except during any period for which
the Regional Transport Authority has
certified in the prescribed manner that the
motor vehicle has not been used or kept
for use. Under this sub section there is a
presumption that a motor vehicle for
which the certificate of registration is
current shall be deemed to be used or kept
for use in the State. This provision
safeguards the revenue of the State by
relieving it from the burden of provide
that the vehicle was used to kept for use
on the public roads of the State. At the
same time, the interest of the bonafide
owner is safeguarded by enabling him to
claim and obtain a certificate of non user
from the prescribed authority. In order to
enable the owner of the vehicle or the
person who is in possession or being in
control of the motor vehicle of; which the
certificate of registration is current to
claim exemption from tax he should get a
certificate in the prescribed manner from
the Regional Transport Officer."

14. The following observations of
the apex court in Dalmia Cement Bharat
Ltd. (supra) are also relevant for the
purpose of the present case :

"....The validity of taxing power
under Entry 57 of List 11 of the Seventh
Schedule read with Article 201 of the
Constitution of India depends upon the
regulatory and compensatory nature of
taxes. It is not the purpose of the Taxation
Act to levy taxes on vehicles, which do
not use the roads or in any way form part
of flow of traffic on roads which is
required to be regulated. The regulations
under the Motor Vehicles Act for
registration and prohibition of certain
categories of vehicles being driven by
persons who have no driving licence,
even though those vehicles are not plying
on the roads are designed to ensure safety
of passengers and goods etc. for that
purpose, it is enacted to keep control and
check on the vehicles. Legislative power
under entry 35 of List 111 (concurrent
list) does not bar such a provision. But
entry 57 of List 11 is subject to the
limitations that the power of taxation
thereunder
cannot
except
the
compensatory nature, which must have
some nexus with the vehicles using the
road viz. public roads. If the vehicles do
not use the roads, notwithstanding the fact
that they are registered under the Motor
Vehicles Act, they cannot be taxed ......"
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Smt. Vidya Gupta and others V. State of U.P. and others 795
15. Likewise, State of Mysore and
others (supra), the following view of the
apex court is relevant for the purpose of
the instant case :-

"The word 'kept' has not been
defined in the Taxation Act. We have,
therefore, to interpret it in ordinary
popular sense, consistently with the
context. The word 'kept' has been
repeatedly used in the section. In subsection (1), it occurs in association with
the phrase 'for use on road'. In that
context, the ordinary dictionary meaning
of the word 'kept' is 'to retain', 'to
maintain' or cause 'to stay' or 'remain in a
place', 'to detain' 'to stay or continue in a
specified condition, position etc.' In
association with the use of the vehicle,
therefore, the word 'kept' has an element
of stationeries. It is something different
from a mere state of transit or a course of
journey through the State. It is something
more than a mere stoppage or halt for rest,
food or refreshment etc., in the course of
transit through the territory of the State."

16. However, the factual position of
the cases on hand, is altogether different.
In the present cases, Section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Motor
Vehicle Taxation Rules 1998 clearly
provide safeguards, both to the revenue as
also to the operator or owner of the
vehicle. That apart, in the case of H.C.
Misra and others vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2002 All.L.J. 2627, a
Division
Bench
of
this
Court
on
consideration of Sections 5 and 6 of the
Act, held that the levy of additional taxes
on goods carriages and public service
vehicles under sections 5 & 6 of the Act is
covered by Entry 57 of List II of Schedule
7 of the Constitution and, therefore,
within Legislative competence of the
State. The Division Bench further held
that it can not be said that the additional
taxes levied under sections 5 and 6 of the
Act on use of Transport vehicles in any
public in Uttar Pradesh in addition to the
one time tax payable under section 4 of
the Act is really a confiscation in the
guise of taxation. The legislation, in
question, does not suffer from the vice of
colorable exercise of power nor is it hit by
doctrine of 'fraud on Constitution.' Even if
it be assumed that the tax liability under
the new Act has increased, that by itself
would be no ground to hold that the
legislation has lost its regulatory and
compensatory character. The questions, if
the levy of the additional taxes under
sections 5 & 6 of the Act satisfies the test
of 'reasonableness' and 'public interest'
and if the same are violative of Article
301 and Article 19(1) (g) of the
Constitution, were considered in the said
decision, and it was held that the said
sections and the imposition of the
additional taxes were not violative of
Article 301 and Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution.
The
Division
Bench
specifically took the view that the said
legislation does not result in breach of the
freedom guaranteed under Article 301 of
the Constitution and further that the levy
of additional taxes under the Act is not
confiscatory or unreasonable. There was
no question of violation of the individual
citizens right guaranteed under Article
19(1) (g) of the Constitution. Submission
made on behalf of the petitioners to the
contrary does not commend itself to be
countenanced. The Division Bench was of
the considered view that the test of
reasonableness and public interest cannot
be held to be violative of Article 301 and
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. In
our view the U.P. Motor Vehicles
Taxation Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
to as the Rules) really do not impose any
burden on the owner or operator of the
motor vehicle if he does not want to use
or he keeps the vehicles not for use or
does not use the vehicle on road, he may
surrender the registration certificate in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
under Rule 22 of the Rules read with
Section 12 of the Act and in that event the
owner shall not be liable to pay tax or
additional taxes. What is required under
the aforesaid provisions of the Act and
Rules is that the owner or operator who
intends not to use the vehicle shall
surrender the vehicle according to the
procedure prescribed and in that event he
has not to pay tax or additional taxes and
non compliance of the procedure for
surrender as prescribed, shall really mean
that the vehicle has not been surrendered.
When the statute prescribes a procedure
and
manner
to
be
followed
for
surrendering the vehicle, the same is
required to be done in that manner only.
The judgment and decision relied upon by
the learned counsel for the petitioners in
the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd. vs.
Regional Transport Officer (supra) does
not, in our view, come in aid of the writ
petitioners. The decision in the case of
State of Gujrat vs. Kaushikbhai K.
Patel (supra) has also to be taken note of.
In the said decision the question of
imposition of such tax on motor vehicle
not used in a public road or public place
was considered. The learned counsel
drew our attention to the following
observations of the apex court:-

".....It is well settled in law that the
tax imposed on vehicle under the Act is
compensatory in nature for the purpose of
raising revenue to meet the expenditure
for making and maintaining the Rule and
Regulation of traffic. To put it differently,
the taxes are levied on the vehicles using
the roads or in any way forming the part
of the flow of traffic on the roads which is
required to be regulated and not on the
vehicles which do not use the roads at all.
What is material and relevant is use of
road by vehicles for levy of tax under the
Act. The reasons for non use of roads is
immaterial and irrelevant when the nature
of the tax itself is compensatory for use of
roads, It follows from sub section (2)
section 3 of the Act that where a motor
vehicle is not using the roads no tax is
levied thereon..... If the vehicles are
clandestinely, put to use without the
certificate
of
registration,
fitness
certificate or taxation certificate, it is open
to the authorities to take action against the
owner in accordance with law. Mere
apprehension of clandestine use of a
vehicle cannot be a ground for imposing
tax on omnibuses which are not put on
road or kept away from use. Looking to
the statement of objects and reasons for
the Amendment, it appears that the
appellants do not trust the owners of
omnibuses or their own officers and
machinery.mere
apprehension
of
the
appellants
that
omnibuses
will
be
clandestinely operated and claim would
be made for refund on the ground of their
non use, in our opinion, can not justify for
the insistence of satisfaction as to the
reasons beyond the control of the owner
of person for non use of a omnibus. This
apart, there is no good reason put forward
as to why the omnibus are singled out.
Even heavy goods transport vehicles are
also
purchased
by
investing
heavy
amount."

17. In our view the aforesaid
decision does not assist the petitioners for
one simple reason that in the instant case,
the Act and the Rules as already noted
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Chairman, S.G.C.College of Pharmacy & Management & anr. V. Pankaj Kumar & ors 797
above provide safeguards, both, to the
state against the evasion of tax and as also
to be bonafied owner or operator to
surrender the vehicle by following the
procedure under section 12 of the Act
read with Rule 22 of the Rules to claim
and obtain a certificate of non user from
the Prescribed Authority and thereby to be
relieved from payment of tax or additional
tax. Accordingly the legislation imposing
tax or additional taxes does not become
arbitrary or ultra vires. The decision relied
upon by the writ petitioners, in our view,
do not really assist them. The reasons
assigned by learned Advocate General in
his
submissions
distinguishing
the
decisions cited by learned counsel for the
writ petitioners, in our view, cannot be
said to be without any substance.

18. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we do not find
any merit in the writ petitions. The writ
petitions
accordingly
fail
and
are
dismissed. Interim order, if any stand
vacated.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SEN, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 207 of 2002

Chairman, Sri Gopi chand College of
Pharmacy
&
Management
Aahera,
Baghpat, U.P. and another ...Appellants
Versus
Pankaj Kumar and others ...Opp. parties

Counsel for the Appellants:
Dr. R.G. Padia
Sri Prakash Padia

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.M. Zaidi
Sri Anurag Khanna
Smt. Aanita Tripathi

U.P.
State
Universities
Act.-1973-
Section 13- Power of Vice Chancellor- to
transfer
the
students
from
one
institution to another - duly affiliated to
the
concern
university-
B.
Pharma
students after facing UP SEAT 1999-
allotted
the
Gopichand
College
of
Pharmacy and management Baghpat-
due to mismanagement on agitation
pursuant to enquiry conducted by the
District
Magistrate-
in
Tripartite
meeting- the Vice Chancellor transferred
all these students from the institution in
question to K.N. Modi College- held-
proper the parties can not reseind from
their stand who participated in Tripartite
meeting-
direction
issued
to
give
admission in transferred college.

Held - para 9

In this view of the matter the objection
raised by Dr. Padia that the Vice
Chancellor, Ch. Charan Singh University,
Meerut, was not at all authorized to
order transfer of the respondents- writ
petitioners from the appellants college to
another college cannot be sustained as
he could exercise such a power under
section 13 of the U.P. State University
Act
1973.
Moreover,
the
State
Government was conscious of the fact
that it had no jurisdiction to order
transfer of students of B. Pharma II year
Course from one college to another, as
they were admitted prior to the coming
into force of U.P. Technical University Act
2000 and that is why it had issued
directions for transfer of the students of
B. Pharma Ist year course from one
college to another college. It is seen
from the order dated 31.5.2001, that the
Chairman and the Director of both the
colleges were present in the meeting
held by the Vice Chancellor, Ch. Charan
Singh University, Meerut and they had
agreed to the proposal of transfer of