U.T. Limited vs State of Haryana

R.L. Anand, J.—M/s. U.T. Limited carrying on business at village Jhermairi Barotiwala, District Solan has filed the present civil writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the State of Haryana, Transport Commissioner and Shri R.K. Sharma, Transport Inspector, respondents No. 1 to 3 respectively praying that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the seizure memo/challan dated 4.1.1996 Annexure P-1 and issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the impounded vehicle No. HP-121055 (Jeep) u/s 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act and its General Manager Shri H.D. Suri is the duly authorised person to file the present writ petition. The petitioner company is engaged in the manufacturing of Iron Casting and has its factory premises at Jharmajri, Barotiwala (Himachal Pradesh) and it has its local office at SCO No. 53, Sector 26, Chandigarh. The petitioner''s company purchased two jeeps bearing Nos. HP-12-1055 and HP-12-1065. Both the jeeps have been purchased by the company for the transit of its employees to and from the factory premises to their residences respectively. The intention of purchasing these vehicles was to facilitate the work at factory which is at presently running into 3 shifts. Since the factory is situated outside the city at a distant place, there is inadequate availability of transport which causes inconvenience to the employees as well as it hampers the working of the factory. Therefore, the petitioner''s company for its smooth running and for the welfare scheme for its staff has purchased two jeeps and the facility is being provided to the staff free of costs and no deduction is made from their salary. Sometime there is An emergency situation in which some workers may get injured during the process of manufacturing and due to inadequate transport facility provided by the State Government, the jeeps are used to carry such injured workers to the hospital and to the desired places and this facility is again provided free of costs. The District Headquarter of the factory is at Solan, the nearest station is Pinjore which is in Haryana. So most of the time the jeeps are used in order to transit the workers from Pinjore to the factory premises. On 4th of January, 1996, Vehicle No. HP-12-1055 was checked by respondent No,. 3 and this vehicle was challaned for the reasons that it was carrying 8 passengers on hire; that the driver of the jeep was not having a driving licence and that there was no document. The vehicle was impounded u/s 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. At the relevant time Mr. Surinder Chaudhary, the Personnel Officer of the company was travelling in the vehicle along with other employees from Panchkula to factory premises. Respondent No. 3 forcibly got the signature of driver on certain papers and impounded the vehicle on the plea that no documents were shown. The Personnel Officer and other staff of the petitioner''s company tried to convince respondent No. 3 that vehicle Used by the petitioner is for carrying its staff free of costs as a measure of welfare scheme and no other unauthorised person was travelling on hire in the said vehicle, and as such the vehicle should not be impounded. Moreover, it is a private service vehicle which is exempted from the operation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to challan and impound the vehicle. The driver as well as the Personnel Officer explained with regard to the documents which were not in their possession and tried to convince respondent No. 3 that earlier the Registration Certificate of the vehicle was in possession of the Excise Authorities, Haryana vide the acknowledgement dated 29.7.1994 and the petitioner company filed a writ petition in the High Court and it was ordered that since no adverse order was passed against the petitioner company, therefore, the writ petition was premature. It was disposed of on 12.8.1994. Against the impounding of the Registration Certificate by the Excise Authority, Haryana, pertaining to the same vehicle, the petitioner has filed an application to the Excise and Taxation Officer, Haryana on 12.8.1994 requesting for the release of the Registration Certificate but the Excise Authorities did not release the document and did not pass any order in accordance with the law as such the petitioner was helpless as well as the driver driving the vehicle was not in a position to show the Registration Certificate. Respondent No. 3 did not honour the acknowledgement issued by the Excise Authorities. Even the driver showed the driving licence to the respondent No. 3 subsequently. On 6.1.1996, a request was made by the General Manager of the company to release the vehicle but to no effect. By way of abundant caution, the petitioner has also filed an appeal u/s 214 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the arbitrary and illegal challaning the vehicle. The petitioner had been intimated by respondent No. 2 that until and unless the passenger-tax and the permit charges amounting to Rs. 10,000/- and other penalties are deposited with the Department the vehicle will not be released on the plea that permit is required for all types of vehicles in terms of section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 2 is siting tight over the appeal and no orders have been passed. The petitioner''s company is suffering loss every day as well as inconvenience is being caused to its staff. In these circumstances, the present writ petition with the above prayer.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the jeep in question was checked at Pinjore-Maranwala Road and was found carrying 8 passengers on hire without documents, including driving licence of the driver Gurjeet Singh and as such the vehicle in the question was impounded u/s 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act On merits, the stand of the respondents is that the jeep in question could not be plied without permit as provided u/s 76 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It could not ply in the territory of Haryana without payment of road tax at the rate of Rs. 400/- per seat per annum as required by the Govt. notification. The vehicle in question was challaned for carrying 8 passengers on hire, without driving licence, without other documents including permit and without payment of road tax as mentioned above. There were no legal documents such as permit and Registeration Certificate in the jeep. The owner of the vehicle in question has remedy of compounding the offence u/s 200 of the Motor Vehicles Act by payment penal fine and payment of road tax. With the above defence, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

The parties have produced certain Annexures, in support of their claim which have also been perused by me with the assistance rendered by Shri Ashok Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri R.S. Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana assisted by Shri Azad Singh, AAG, Haryana, on behalf of the respondents.

It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case no permit was required u/s 66 of the, Act as on the relevant date only the staff members of the company were travelling in the Jeep nor the petitioner company was required to pay any passenger tax. The activity of the petitioner company was not for its own commercial gain. The jeep was not carrying the persons against any consideration and in these circumstances, the impounding of the jeep by respondent No. 3 u/s 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act was illegal. On the contrary, Shri Chahar submitted that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers and in these circumstances the permit was required oh the Part of the petitioner u/s 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner company was also required to pay the passenger tax. The driver of the jeep at the relevant time was also not holding any valid driving licence and other necessary documents and, therefore, action on the part of the respondent was totally justified.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondents are without any substance. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down 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 save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used."

The perusal of the above provisions would show that a permit is required if a particular motor vehicle is used as a "transport vehicle". If the use of the vehicle is not as a transport vehicle, then the provisions of Section 66 of the Act would not come into play. In the present case, the case of the, petitioner company is that on the relevant day the jeep in question was only used for carrying the workers of the company for dropping them in the factory premises and the object of plying the jeep is only to carry the workers from their residences to the factory premises and back, and therefore, it cannot be held that the jeep in question was a transport vehicle as understood u/s 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If this is the position, the provisions of Section 76 of the Act would also not come into play for the grant of permit to a private service vehicle. Section 2(47) or the Motor Vehicles Act defines a transport vehicle which means a public service vehicle, a goods carrier, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. The interpretation to this Clause would mean that the use of a vehicle must be for commercial gain or that being used as such in order to carry the passengers who have paid consideration to the carrier. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Sharma, has invited my attention to Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. The Sales Tax Officer and Regional Transport Officer, Poona and Another, , where it was held that even if a nominal charge is realised from the employees of the Company that would not make the transport a public service vehicle carrying passengers as to attract the provision of Section 3 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act. The Hon''ble Supreme Court after interpreting the relevant provisions came to the conclusion that tax would be leviable only if the passengers are carried on a public service vehicle. The Hon''ble Supreme Court interpreted the term ''Public Service Vehicle'' and it was held that the word ''Public'' has got a well-known connotation and means a carriage to which any member of the public can have free access on payment of the usual charges. It cannot by any process of reasoning or stretch of imagination be deemed to include employees of a private company who are given facilities not as members of the public but as holding a special status, namely, the employees of that company. Thus qua public the employees form a separate class and cannot be said to be public as contemplated by relevant provision of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules.

In the present case also at the relevant time, the employees of the company were in the jeep but the vehicle was not being used as a transport vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, there was no necessity of any permit as required u/s 66 of he Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Respondent No. 3 authority was not justified in impounding the vehicle or in challaning the same on the plea that its owner was required to obtain a permit or that its owner was also liable to pay the passenger tax at the rate of Rs. 400/- per seat

In the light of above discussion, the present writ petition is allowed and a writ of certiorari is issued quashing the seizure/challan dated 4.1.1996 Annexure P.1 and directions are also given to respondent-authorities for release the impounded vehicle bearing No. HP-12-1055 forthwith on the production of the copy of this order to the Authorities. Respondent-authorities, however, would be competent to proceed against the driver of the jeep according to the law for not showing the driving licence at the time of checking.