High Court · 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 8.9.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.4737 of 2001, W.P.No.4738 of 2001W.P.No.19595 of 2002, W.P.No.46011 of 2002 W.P.No.19471 of 2004,W.P.No.18929 of 2005, W.P.No.2565 of 2005,M/s. The United Planters'Association of Southern IndiaGlenview, Post Box No.11,Coonoor – 643 101rep. by Secretary General .. Petitioner in W.P.No.4737 of 2001, W.P.No.4738 of 2001W.P.No.19595 of 2002 and W.P.No.2565 of 2005The Coonoor Tea Estates Co. Ltd.,Spring Field PostCoonoor, rep. by itsGeneral Manager .. petitioner in W.P.No.46011 of 2002Upasi Tea Research FoundationGlenview, Post Box No.11,Coonoor – 643 101rep. by the Director .. petitioner in W.P.No.19471 of 2004The Coonoor Tea Estates Co. Ltd.,SpringField PostCoonoor, rep. by itsAuthorised Signatory .. petitioner in W.P.No.18929 of 2005 vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Transport Government of Tamil Nadu St.George Fort, Chennai-9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Transport Chepauk, Chennai3. The Regional Transport Office Ottacamund, Nilgiris .. Respondents in all the writ petitionsW.P.No.4737 of 2001:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the TOYOTAQUALIS – FS B1/2500 mm Vehicle ENGINE NO.2L 9654971 – ChassisNo.LF 50 1023535/01/01 purchased by the petitioner, on 14.2.2001,as a private vehicle.W.P.No.4738 of 2001:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the Mahindraand Mahindra Bolero TN 43 A 3235 Engine No.DY 80989 - ChassisNo.MA 1 PP 2 DD – Y2L69814 purchased by the petitioner, on1.2.2001, as a private vehicle.W.P.No.19595 of 2002:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the ToyotoQualis – Engine No.LF50 – 1053606 03/02 – Chassis No2L 9731232purchased by the petitioner on 28.3.2002 as a private vehicle.W.P.No.46011 of 2002:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the MahindraScorpio Engine No.BF24L47296 - Chassis No.MA1TA2BFC22L94867purchased by the petitioner on 29.11.2002 as a private vehicle.W.P.No.19471 of 2004:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the Toyotaqualis - Engine No.2L 5442435 - Chassis No.LF 50 1117252 purchasedby the petitioner on 17.5.2004 as a private vehicle. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No.18929 of 2005:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the Tata SumoSE 4 x 4, - Engine No.483DL47CUZ707507 - Chassis – 418106CUZ914290purchased by the petitioner on 23.3.2005 as a private vehicle.W.P.No.2565 of 2005:This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofMandamus to direct the third respondent to register the Tempo TraxCurser Jeep - Engine No.D 140 25780 - Chassis T 570 26578 MO4purchased by the petitioner on 16.12.2004 as a private vehicle. For petitioners : Mr.A.K.Sriram For Respondents : Ms.D.Geetha Additional Government PleaderC O M M O N O R D E RHeard the learned counsels appearing for the partiesconcerned. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions havearisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order ispassed.3. It has been stated that the petitioners in the above writpetitions are either societies, registered under the SocietiesRegistration Act, 1860 or Companies, registered under theCompanies Act, 1956. The petitioners have a number of vehicles,registered in their names and provided for the use of theirofficers. After purchasing the vehicles, the petitioners hadtemporarily registered the vehicles as 'private vehicles' withtemporary registration numbers. However, when the petitionerswanted to register the vehicles, the third respondent had informedthe petitioners that the vehicles could not be registered as'private vehicles' and that they have to be registered only as'private transport vehicles'. Based on a communication issued bythe Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai,dated 20.5.2000, wherein it has been stated that the vehicles withthe seating capacity of more than six and registered in the nameof the Company come under the purview of Sections 2(33) and 2(47)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in view of a circular issued by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Government of India, dated 15.3.2000. In the communication ofthe Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai,dated 20.5.2000, it has been stated that whenever such vehiclesare registered in the names of the companies, the intention isobvious that these vehicles would necessarily be used for thepurpose of carrying persons for or in connection with the trade orbusiness, otherwise than for hire or rent. As such, the usage ofthe vehicles attract the provisions of Section 2(33) of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988, for their use as private service vehicles.Therefore, the necessary application forms have to be obtained andprocessed at the time of such registration. Such vehicles shouldbe registered only as private vehicles and necessary permits arerequired, under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. It has been further stated that the consequence of suchregistration as 'private transport vehicles' is that they have toundergo periodical inspections for obtaining fitness certificatesand they should either carry white number plates or yellow numberplates as prescribed by the rules. The vehicles can be used onlyin the specified areas and routes. Since the vehicles have beenpurchased by the Societies or the Companies for the personal useof their officers, it cannot be said that they are being used orthat they will be used for carrying persons for or in connectionwith the trade or business of the petitioners. 5. It has also been stated that the communication of theSpecial Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport Chennai, dated20.5.2000, is prima facie erroneous as it has been wrongly assumedthat every vehicle, with a seating capacity of more than sixbought by a Company or a Society and registered in its name wouldbe necessarily used only for the purpose of transporting personsfor or in connection with the trade or business of the saidCompany or society. Such a presumption is fallacious, as it is notbased on facts and therefore, it is unsustainable in the eye oflaw. 6. It has been further stated that if the vehicles are to beregistered in terms of the communication, dated 20.5.2000, thepetitioners would have to obtain the necessary permits for the useof the said vehicles. Obtaining of such permits would by itselfattract the provisions of Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu MotorVehicles Rules and the vehicles would have to be run only on dailybasis on the specified routes. On the failure of the petitionersto comply with the said conditions, the permits are liable to becancelled. The refusal of the third respondent to register thevehicles as 'private vehicles' is arbitrary and illegal andtherefore, the third respondent should be directed by this Courtto register the vehicles belonging to the petitioners, as 'privatevehicles' and not as 'private transport vehicles'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the thirdrespondent, it has been stated that as per the communicationissued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport,Chennai, in Lr.No.29068/H3/2000, dated 20.5.2000, (CircularNo.107/2000) the Government of India, Ministry of surfacetransport Department, in letter No.11036/R1/1997, dated 15.3.2000and the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1248(E), dated 5.11.2004,it has been stated that all the vehicles with the seating capacityof more than six and registered in the name of the company wouldcome under the purview of Section 2(33) and Section 2 (47) of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, pursuant to the circular issued by theGovernment of India, dated 15.3.2000. The application for the newregistration of the vehicles as 'private vehicles' was returnedrequesting the petitioners to apply for private service vehiclespermits as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act,1988.8. It has been further stated that when a Company used itsvehicles, it would be used for its official purpose as itsofficers would be using the vehicles in their official capacityfor its trade or business. Therefore, all the vehicles needperiodical check up and the use of such vehicles would berestricted. 9. It has also been stated that the Government of India,Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, had by itsletter in Lr.No.RT/11028/14/2002/MVL, dated 3.10.2006, hasclarified that the motor vehicles having a seating capacity ofmore than six passengers, excluding the driver belonging toCharitable /Philanthropic institutions /Company/firm or societyshould be appropriately registered under the category of transportvehicles so that they should undergo an annual fitness certificatetest. Once the vehicle belonging to the petitioners is used by itsofficers, it is necessary to get a permit as it would attract Rule172(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Further,according to Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,necessary permits have to be obtained for the transport vehicles.According to Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, anapplicant, other than the individuals, would come under thecategory of society or Company. The vehicles belonging to thepetitioners would be necessarily used for carrying the persons inconnection with the trade or business of the petitioners andtherefore, it is clear that the reliefs prayed for by thepetitioners in the above writ petitions are not sustainable. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of thepetitioners, as well as the respondents, in the above writpetitions and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for by thepetitioners cannot be granted by this Court. 11. From the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the thirdrespondent, it is clear that the vehicles belonging to thepetitioners cannot be registered as 'private vehicles', as prayedfor in the above writ petitions. The vehicles belonging to thepetitioners could only be registered as private service vehicles,under the category of transport vehicles, requiring permits underthe provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framedthereunder. Further, the refusal of the third respondent toregister the vehicles belonging to the petitioners as privatevehicles is in accordance with the communication issued by theSpecial Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, inLr.No.29068/H3/2000, dated 20.5.2000, (Circular No.107/2000) theGovernment of India, Ministry of surface transport Department, inletter No.11036/R1/1997, dated 15.3.2000 and the notificationissued in G.O.Ms.No.1248(E), dated 5.11.2004, which states thatall the vehicles with the seating capacity of more than six andregistered in the name of the company would come under the purviewof Section 2(33) and Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. 12. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleaderappearing for the respondents had placed before this Court anunreported decision, dated 10.1.2008, made in W.P.Nos.15683 of2000 (batch), wherein, in similar circumstances, a learned SingleJudge of this Court had dismissed the writ petitions stating thatwhen the vehicles are owned by a Company or a Trust and they areused by their officers in connection with the trade of business ofsuch a trust or company, such vehicles would not come under thecategory of 'private vehicles'. Instead, such vehicles would fallunder the category of 'private service vehicles', attractingSection 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In suchcircumstances, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.Hence, they are dismissed. No costs.lan Sd/- Assistant Registrar / True Copy / Sub. Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Secretary Ministry of Transport Government of Tamil Nadu St.George Fort, Chennai-92. The Special Commissioner & Commissioner of Transport Chepauk, Chennai3. The Regional Transport Office Ottacamund, Nilgiris1 cc to the GOvernment Pleader, SR.512891 cc to Mr.Suresh Krishnamoorthy, Advocate, SR.51210CK (CO)dv/31.10.W.P.No.4737 of 2001, W.P.No.4738 of 2001W.P.No.19595 of 2002, W.P.No.46011 of 2002 W.P.No.19471 of 2004,W.P.No.18929 of 2005 and W.P.No.2565 of 2005,