BRJIENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

A       BRJJENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
                                         v.
                    STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

                                  OCTOBER 14, 1992

B                [S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND
                         YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.)

          Motor Vehicles:

C         Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/U.P. Motor
    Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976:

        Sections 2(7),(22) 88/Sections 2(3),(15)(18-A), 63(6) Section
  2(d)-'Mini bus'-Wliether falls within the definition 'mini cab', 'mini car' or
  'Omni bus'-Contract Carriage pe1111it granted to mini bus-Whether covered
D under 'Contract Carriage'-Holders of such pe1111it-Whether could pick up
  individual passengers at the starting point of journey-Difference between
  stage carriage and Contract Carriag&-What is.

          The definitions of Motor Car", "Omni bus," and "stage carriage" as
                             11



E   contained in the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, remained the same In
    the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the definition of 'contract carriage"
    was changed in the New Act. It defines that a contract carriage operates
    from point to point and without stopping to pick up or set down pas-
    sengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey and
    includes "maxi.cab" and "motor cab"; "motor cab" is also defined in the New
F   Act; but not "Mini bus".

          The Respondent-State in 1971 decided to adopt a liberal policy of
    issuing contract carriage permits to mini buses permitting them to ply
    their vehicles on the various routes In the respondent-State. However,
G   there w~s no definition of "mini bus" at that time in any enactment.
    Subsequently the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special provision) Act, 1976 came
    Into force, which defined "mini bus" as the one constructed or adopted to
    carry not more than 35 passengers excluding driver.

          The appellants raised the question as to whether the contract car- ;
H rlage permit holders of mini buses in the Respondent-State are entitled to
                                        984
              BRIJENDRA CHAUDHARI v. STATE OFU.P.                           985

pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey, in their A
Writ Petitions before the High Court. The Full Bench of the High Court
having dismissed the Writ Petitions, the appellants have come in appeal
to this Court.

      It was argued on behalf of the appellants that though under the
contract carriage permit only those persons who were mentioned In the               B
contract could be picked up, and stopping on the route to pick up or set
down passengers is prohibited, there could be several contracts because
the definition states that it is motor vehicle which "carries passenger or
passengers"; and that the latter part of the definition of contract carriage
which says that "notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for Its            C
passengers" would show that there could be separate fares for the pas·
sengers and that therefore individual passengers could be picked up at the
starting point and it is an exception to an otherwise contract carriage
permit under the main part of the definition contained in Section 2(7) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
                                                                                    D
      This Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court and dismissed
the appeals for reasons to follow.

      Now, giving its reasons for the dismissal, this Court,

      HELD: 1. There is no definition of"mini bus" in the Motor Vehicles Act        E
botooe bas to look up to its definition only in the U.P.Act. In the light of that
definition and the other definitions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only a
motor vehicle coostrocted or adapted to carry not more than thirty five
passengers excluding the driver and which is not a "Maxi Cab" or "Motor
Cab" will normally be treated as a mini bus. It will not come under the             F
delinition of 'motor car" lo Section 2(26) as It is a transport vehicle within
the meaning of Section 2(47). But the definition of"Omol bus" Is wide enough
to include within it mini bus as well. Therefore a contract carriage permit
granted in respect of a mini bus will fall under the main part of the definition
lo Section 2(7) of the new Act. Mini bus is neither a maxi cab nor a motor cab
and, therefore, the exception provided in the last part of the definition will      G
not be applicable to the case of a mini bus. In fact, It was not the case of the
appellants themselves that they are running a maxi cab or that their vehicles
are motor cabs. In such circumstances, the contract carriage permit holders
of mini buses are not entitled to pick up individual passengers at the starting
point of their journey. [990-H, 991 A·B, 993-F)                                     H
    986                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A         2.1. The definition of 'contract carriage' makes it clear that in order
    that a vehicle could be used to transport passenger or passengers there
    must be a prior contract, express or implied, and that the contract must
    indicate as to who are the passengers to be carried; that the contract
    should have been entered into by a person with the bolder of the permit
B   or any person authorised by him and that the engagement under 'a
    contract' is for use of the vehicle as a whole. It is not possible to read the
    words 'under a contract' in the context as referring to both a single
    contract and more than one contract If snch a construction is accepted
    there would be no distinction between stage carriage and contract carriage
    permits. Both these clauses of permits are intende.d to meet different
C   requirements. A stage carriage is intended to meet the requirements of the
    general traveUing public. But the contract carriages are for those who want
    to hire the vehicle collectively or individnally for a group or party for their
    transport from place to place and the whole vehicle is at their disposal.
    This is also made clear in Section 88(8) of the new Act corresponding to
D   Section 63(6) of the Old AcL (991 D-Fl

          2.2. Some express buses and stage carriages with corridor restric·
    tions pick up passengers at the starting point of the Journey and drop them
    at the last termini of the route without the right to pick up or drop
    passengers on the notified route between the two termini. Further the
E   definition in the Act bas added the words 'for the carriage of passengers
    mentioned therein" (contract) which were not there earlier. These words
    clearly show that tbel'!' most be a prior contract and the passengers shall
    be settled in advance. (992 G-H; 993-A)

F         Roshan Lal Gautham v. The State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1965 SC 991,
    relied on.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4216-18
    of 1992.

G         From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.91, 23.8.91 & 23.10.91 of
    the Allaliabad High Court in W.P.C. Misc. Nos. 25646/90, 22618/90 & 5577
    of 1991.

          D.K. Garg and R.C. Kausbik for the Appellants.

H         D.V. Sehgal, B.S. Chauhan, R.B. Misra and Vishwajit Singh for the
    BRJJENDRA CHAUDHARI v. STATE OF U.P. [RAMASWAMI, J.] 987

Respondents.                                                               A
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      V. RAMASWAMI, J. We granted leave and dismissed the appeals on
27.3.1992. Here are our reasons for the dismissal of the appeals. In Gur
Bachan Singh & Ors. v, The Regional Transport Officer, Kanpur & Ors. Civil B
Miscellaneous Writ No. 9553 of 1981 a Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court in their order dated 19th April, 1985 held on the ground that
as the Transport Authority had granted contract carriage permits to their
mini buses to be plied as motor cars, the operators were free to pick up
individual passengers from one point to other. They further held that:     C
        "the definition of 'contract carriage' was widened by the
        Amendment made by Act 56 of 1%9, as a result of which
        a contract carriage permit holder is entitled to carry
        passenger or passengers for hire or reward OJ} a route or
        distance, or from one point to another. The only restric-          D
        tion is that it cannot stop between one point to the other
        to set down and pick up passengers. Ordinarily contract
        carriage permit holder is entitled to carry passengers from
        one point to another; but the extended meaning has made
        it clear that the contract carriage can be operated as
        motor carriage notwithstanding the passengers pay                  E
        separate fares. Thus it is apparent that separate individual
        passengers may be booked by the contract carriage
        holders from one point to another".

      It appears that prior to 1971 Transport Authorities of U.P. State F
were generally granting contract carriage permits to Fiat and Ambassador
cars for plying the same from one city to another. On the ground that there
were pressing demands for introduction of mini buses the State Transport
Authority by resolution dated 5/6 November, 1971 decided to adopt a
liberal policy of issuing contract carriage permits to mini buses permitting G
them to ply their vehicles on the various routes in the State. There appears
to have been no definition of a "mini bus" at that time in any enactment.
However, in the view that the 'mini buses' which were constructed or
adapted to carry more than six persons would fall either under the defini-
tion of 1omni bus' or 'motor cars' contract carriage permits were issued to
these mini buses to be plied as motor cars. There is an obvious mistqke _in H
    988                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) SUPP. l S.C.R.

A this view because the definition of 'motor car' excluded transport vehicles.
    This decision was holding the field till the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
    came into force with effect from [st of July, 1989.

           When another case came up before another Division Bench in the
    case of Samundra Devi v. State Transport Authority {Civil Miscellaneous
B   Writ No. 25781 of 1990) that Bench in view of the change in the definition
    of contract carriage in the new Act referred the matter along with some
    other cases to a larger Bench. The Full Bench held that the definition of
    'contract carriage' is exhaustive and would take into its fold all types of
    vehicles which are permitted to ply as 'contract carriage' irrespective of
c   their size and seating capacity and that maxi cab and motor cab would also
    be included in the definition of contract carriage notwithstanding that
    separate fares are charged from its passengers.

         "Mini buses" came to be defmed in Section 2(d) of the U.P. Motor
    Vehicles {Special Provision) Act, 1976 as under:
D
             "Mini bns means which is constructed or adapted to carry
             not more than 35 passengers excluding the driver".

          The question which thus arises for considerauon in .these appeals is
E   whether the contract carries permit holders of mini bnses are entitled to
    pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey.

           It would be convenient and necessary at this stage to refer to the
    relevant provisions under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the
    provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act). Broad-
F   ly the publice passenger transport motor vehicles recognised under the Act
    were 'motor cab' and 'omni bus' which in turn with reference to its user
    permit is either a 'contract carriage' or a 'stage carriage'. These descriptive
    vehicles were defined in the old Act as it was originally enacted as under:

             "2{15) "Motor Cab" means any motor vehicles constructed,
G            adapted or used to carry not more than six passengers
             excluding the driver, for hire or reward".

    'Omni bus' and 'maxi cab' were not defined in the original Act but
    definition of Omni bus was inserted by the Motor Vehicles {Amendment)
H   Act, 1956 which reads as under:
    BRIJENDRACHAUDHARI v.STATEOFU.P. [RAMASWAMI,J.) 989

        "2(18A) 'Omni Bus' means any motor vehicle constructed               A
        or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the
        driver"~

      Stage Carriage was defmed in Section 2(29) of the Old Act as
follows:
                                                                             B
        "2(29) "Stage Carriage" means a motor vehicles carrying
        or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the
        driver 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''.                C

'Contract Carriage' was defined in Section 2(3) and that as it stood prior
to 1970 was under:

        '(3) "Contract Carriage" means a motor vehicle which
        carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under           D
        a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicles
        as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate of sum and
        from one point to another without stopping to pick up or
        set down along the line of route passengers not included
        in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding
        that the passengers may pay separate fares'.                         E
After it was amended by Act 56 of 1%9 with effect from 2.3. 70 the
definition read:

        '(3) "contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which car·
        ries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a            F
        contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle
        as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum·

        (i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any
        route or distance, or
                                                                             G
        (ii) from one point to another, and in either case without
        stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route
        passengers not included in the contract; and includes a
        motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay
        separate fares11
                           •                                                 H
     990                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A          The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the new Act 59 of
     1988 came to force as already stated with effet from !st July, 1989. There
     is no change in the definition of "motor cab'. The definition of 'stage
     carriage' also remains the same. The definition of "contract carriage",
     however, has been changed which in our view was intended to convey more
     explicitly what the legislature intended to convey by those words even
B    under the old Act and that definition reads as follows:

                '2(7) 'contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which
                carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and
                is engaged under a contract, whether expressed or im-
c               plied, for the use of such vehicles 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
                vehicles or any person authorised by him in this behalf on
                a fixed or an agreed rate or sum-

D               (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
                in the contract anywhere during the journey; and includes-
E
                (i) a maxi-cab; and

                (ii) a motor-cab notwithstanding that separate fares are
                charged for its passengers'

F The Legislature has used a new word 'maxi-cab" and that is defined as
     follows:

                "2(22) 'maxi cab" means any motor vehicle constructed or
                adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more
                than twelve passengers, excluding the driver, for hire or
G
                reward".

           There is no definition of "mini bus" in the Motor Vehicles Act but
     we have to look up to its definition only in the U .P. Act above referred to.
     In the light of that definition set out above and the other definitions in the
.H   New Act oruy a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more
    BRIJENDRACHAUDHARI v. STATEOFU.P. [RAMASWAMI,J.] 991

than thirty five passengers excluding the driver .and which is not a "Maxi       A
Cab" or "Motor Cab" will normally be treated as a mini bus. It will not come
under the definition of "motor car" in Section ·2(26) as it is a transport
vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(47). But the definition of 'omni
bus' is wide enough to include within it mini bus as well. Therefore a
contract carriage permit granted in respect of a mini bus will fall under the    B
main part of the definition in Section 2(7) of the Act.

      The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants was that
though under a contract carriage permit only those persons who ·are
mentioned in the contract could be picked up and stopping on the route
to pick up or set down passengers is prohibited, there could be several          C
contracts becuase definition states that it is motor vehicle which 'carries a
passenger or passengers'.

       The definition makes it clear that in order that vehicle could be used
to transport passenger or passengers there must be a prior contract express      D
or implied that the contract must indicate as to who are the passengers to
be car<ied that the contract shall have been entered into by a person with
the holder of the permit or any person authorised by him and that the
engagement under 'a contract' is for use of the vehicle as a whole. It is not
possible to read the words "under a contract" in the context as referring to
both a single contract and more that one contract. If the construction           E
placed by the learned counsel is accepted there would be no distinction
between stage carriage and i:ontract carriage permits. Both these clauses
of permits are intended to meet different requirements. A stage carriage
is intended to meet the requirements of the general travelling public. But
the contract carriages are for those who want to hire the vehicle collectively   F
or individually for a group or party for their transport from place to place
and the whole vehicle is at their disposal. This is also made clear in Section
88(8) of the Act corresponding to Section 63 (6) of the Old Act wherein
it is provided:

         "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),                 G
         but subject to any rules that may be made under this Act
         by the Central Government, the Regional Transport
         Authority of any one region or, as the case may be, the
         State Transport Authority, may, for the convenience of
         the public, grant a special permit in relation to a vehicle             H
    992                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A           covered by a permit issued under section 72 (including a
            reserve stage carriage) or under Section 74 or under
            sub-section (9) of this Section for carrying a passenger or
            passengers for hire or reward under a contract, express
            or implied, for the use of the vehicle as a whole without
            stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route
B
            passengers not included in the contract, and in every case
            where such special permit is granted, the Regional
            Transport Authority shall assign to the vehicle, for display
            thereon, a special distinguishing mark in the form and
            manner specified by the Central Government and such
c           special permit shall be valid in any other region or state
            without the counter signature of th~ Regional Transport
            Authority of the other region or of the ·state Transport
            Authority of other State, as the case may be."

D   The contract shall be prior and the persons who are to be carried shall be
    known prior to the journey is also clear from the other limitation lhat the
    vehicle cannot stop to pick up or set down passengers not included in the
    contract anywhere during the journey. As pointed out by this Court in
    Roshan Lal Gautham v. The State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 991:

E           "The contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the
            journey between two points for carriage of a person or
            persons hiring it but it has not the right to pick up other
            passengers on route. The sklge carriage on the other hand,
            runs between ·two points irrespective of any prior contract
F           and it is boarded by pru;sengers en route who pay the fare
            for distance they propose to travel."

    If as contended by the learned counsel contract carriage permit holder can
    pick up individual passengers at the starting point of the journey it is
    virtually a stage carriage with corridor restriction. Some express buses and
G   stage carriages with corridor restriction pick up pasengers al the starting
    point of the journey and drop them at the last termini of the route without
    the right to pick up or drop passengers on the notified route between the
    two termini. Further the definition in the Act has added the words "for the
    carriage of passenger mentioned therein (contract)" which were not there
H   earlier. These w0rds clearly show that there must be a prior contract and
    .BRUENDRACHAUDHARI v.STATEOFU.P. [RAMASWAMl,J.] 993

the passengers shall be settled in advance.                                    A
      It was then contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the latter part of the definition of contract carriage which says that "not-
withstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers" would show
that there could be separate fares for its passengers and that, therefore,
individual passengers could be picked up at the starting point. According B
to him this is an exception to an otherwise contract carriage permit under
the main part of the definition of Section 2(7). This contention is unsus-
tainable. The definition of a contract carriage under Section 2(7) is exhaus-
tive and takes into its fold all types of vehicles which are permitted to ply
as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity. In the C
main part of the definition which applies to all vehicles certain limitations
and conditions are referred to as implied in the grant of a contract carriage
permit. However, an exception bas been made in the case of a motor cab
and that is notwithstanding separate fares are charged from its passengers
a contract carriage permit could be granted in favour of such motor cab.
But even in the case of a motor cab the condition relating to not picking D
up or dropping passengers on the route is applicable. The exception also
is applicable only where the motor cab is under its permit or under any
law entitled or eligible to charge separate fares from its passengers. The
grant of contract carriage permit in respect of a motor cab will automat-
ically attract all the conditions provided in the ~ain part of the section.    E
However, if there is any other provision or law under which the motor cabs
are permitted to charge separate fares from its passengers then not-
withstanding their entitlement to charge separate fares from its passengers
it would be considered as having a contract carriage permit. As already
stated mini bus is neither a maxi cab nor a motor cab and, therefore, the
exception provided in the last part of the definition will not be applicable   F
to the case of a mini bus. In fact it was not the case of the appellants
themselves that they are running a maxi cab or that their vehicles are motor
cabs. For the foregoing reasons the appeals were dismissed. No costs.

G.N.                                                    Appeals dismissed.