In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 11.01.2008 Coram: The Honourable Mr.Justice S.MANIKUMAR Writ Petition No.35633 of 2003 Madras English Baptist Church rep.by Rev.Dr.J.A.L.Baynes, SB Chairman, Board of Trustees 115, Vepery High Road Chennai.3. .. Petitioner v 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Secretary to Government Home Department (Transport) Chennai.9. 2. The Regional Transport Officer Chennai (East) Chennai.12 .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to desist from demanding that the petitioner's light motor vehicles bearing registration No.s TN 04 C 101g, TN 04 C 3210 and TN 04 D 2425, should obtain permits and FC under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for further orders. For petitioners : Mr. C.Rajan For respondents : Mr. A.Arumugham AGP O R D E R The petitioner has sought for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to desist from demanding permits and FC under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the petitioner's light motor vehicles bearing registration No.s TN 04 C 1019, TN 04 C 3210 and TN 04 D 2425 and for further orders. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner Church is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1937, which was founded in the year 1847 under the name of Madras English Baptist Church. The petitioner, a minority institution, and running two recognised schools by name, Baynes Memorial Baptist Church Matriculation Higher Secondary School at No.115, Vepery High Road, Chennai and at 188, Baptist Avenue, Jaladianpet, Chennai. In order to pick up and drop the students and staff of the school, the petitioner trust has purchased two six wheelers Ashok Leyland buses and three four wheeler Mahindra vans and the petitioner has been exempted from obtaining permits and an endorsement has also been made in the R.C.Books. The vans bearing registration Nos. TN 04 1019, TN 04 C 3210 and TN 04 D 2425 are similarly exempted from obtaining permits. The annual taxes and insurance for the said vehicles are paid regularly. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the third respondent has refused to accept the road-tax for the year 2002-2003, demanding the petitioner to obtain permits for the aforesaid vehicles and hence, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.14877 of 2002 for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the third respondent to desist from insisting the petitioner to obtain permits for the aforesaid four vehicles. This Court by order dated29.04.2002 in W.P.M.P.No.19987 of 2002, directed the third respondent to accept road tax in respect of the petitioner's vehicles. Again when the road tax was not accepted for the year 2003-2004, the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.M.P.No.11782 of 2003, wherein this Court passed an order on 07.04.2003, directing the third respondent to accept the road tax due to the petitioner's vehicles, pending further orders. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the vehicles bearing registration Nos. TN 04 C 1019, TN 04 C 3210 and TN 04 D 2425, are light motor vehicles and they do not require any permits nor they are affected by the enhancement of tax under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 13 of 2003. However, since the vehicle bearing No. TN 04 C 3210 was seized by the second respondent for lack of Fitness Certificate and for non-payment of the arrears of difference in tax, the petitioner had to pay a sum of Rs.2,268/- failing which, the second respondent refused to release the vehicle. The respondents have no right to demand the petitioner to obtain Fitness Certificate or demand difference in tax for the three vehicles mentioned above, since they come under the definition of "light motor vehicles' as defined under Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the petitioner, left with no option, has filed the present writ petition for the relief as stated supra. 5. The respondents filed their counter-affidavit contending inter alia that educational institution bus permits for the vehicles bearing registration Nos. TN04 C3210 and TN 04 C 3417, were valid upto 14.07.2007. The Government of India in Gazette No.34 dated 14.08.2000 has made an amendment, deleting clause (h) sub section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Consequent to the amendment, all educational institution buses have to take out permits under Motor Vehicles Act. Since the petitioner's vehicles also fall under this caegory (Transport Vehicles), they have to necessarily take out permits for their vehicles as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. It is further submitted that according to Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, any transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of Section 39 of the Act, , unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form as prescribed by the competent authority. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is liable to take out fitness certificate for the vehicles. 7. It is also further contended that even though the petitioner's vehicles fall under Section 2 (21) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, they are also covered under Sections 66, 39 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore, vehicle owned by the petitioner should obtain necessary permits and fitness certificates under the provisions of the Act, 1988. With the above contentions, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. Mr. C.Rajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's Trust is the owner of the vehicles, which are used exclusively for carrying students and staff of the said educational institution and, therefore, it cannot be brought under the definition of public service vehicle and consequently the directions issued by the respondents to obtain permits to the vehicles owned by the petitioner trust is arbitrary. 9. He further submitted that the trust has been granted permission to establish and run schools and when the permits stand in the name of the petitioner's trust for the use of vehicles, solely for carrying the students and staff, it cannot be denied the rate of tax applicable for such use, merely on the ground that the permits stands in the name of the trust and not in the name of the educational institution. Further, in the absence of any complaint from any quarters that the vehicles are used for any other purposes, the requirement of permits to be obtained for public service veicle is unwarranted and in these circumtances, prayed for a mandamus. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents reiterating the contentions made in the counter- affidavit submitted that permits issued to the vehicles owned by the petitioner trust was valid upto 14.07.2007. Further, Section 66 (3)(h) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was deleted with effect from 14.08.2000, as per Gazette of India No.34 dated 14.08.2000 and consequently vehicles owned by the petitioner would fall under the purview of Transport Vehicles and it is mandatory the petitioner to obtain permits as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that Clause 8 (a) to Schedule 1 of Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 states that in respect of vehicles owned by the educational institutions (Educational institution bus) – the tax would be Rs.500/- and in other cases, for every person (other than the driver which the vehicle is permitted to carry, the tax would be Rs.150/- per quarter. According to him, the registration of the vehicles is in the name of the trust which cannot be equated to an "Educational Institution" and both denote different meaning in the context of the laws governing the two entities. 12. He further submitted that as per Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, any transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39 of the ACt, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form prescribed by the competent authority and in these circumstance, the petitioner is liable to take out fitness certificate and permits for the vehicles. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. The petitioner Church, being a society, registered under the Societies Registration Act in the year 1937, is running two schools. According to the Society, vehciles were purchased for transporting students and staff of the schools and they obtained permits and endorsements have been made in the R.C.books. 15. Pleadings disclose that whenever, rod tax was tendered for the year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, under the orders of this Court payments have been made. There is no iota of material to prove that the third respondent has issued any order or written instructions directing the petitioner trust to obtain permits for the vehicles under the category of transport vehicles. 16. Admittedly, though the trust has started the educational institutions as per the norms provided by the statutory authorities, the trust can have various activities including establishment of an educational institutions. 17. The term "Education Institution bus" has been defined under Section 2 (11) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that the vehicle should be used solely for the purpose of transporting students and staff of education institution in connection with its activities. 18. A "private service vehicle" is defined under Section 2 (33) of the Act, which means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with, his trade or business otherwise than a for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes. 19. In the instant case, the vehicles owned by the trust is used for the purpose of trade or business, 'Trade' includes, activity done by a person, for the purpose of generating income. Being a society, running educational institutions besides engaging in other activities, the vehicles owned by the petitioner trust would certainly not fall within the definition educational institutions bus. 20. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which deals with necessity for permits, reads as follows: "(1) 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". Since the vehicles used by the petitioner cannot be brought under the definition as educational institution, consequently they have to apply for permits under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Earlier, Section 66 (3) (h) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 shall not apply to any transport vehicle owned by, and used solely for the purposes of, any educational institution recognised by the Central or State Government or whose managing committee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860) or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India". Subsequently the said Section 66 (3)(h) has been deleted by the government with effect from 14.08.2000 and consequently, the petitioner ought to have applied to the Transport Authority for issue of a private service vehicle permit. So far, the petitioner has not applied for such permits, but has rushed to this Court seeking for a relief against the competent authorities from demanding the petitioner to obtain necessary permits and Fitness Certificates for the vehicles owned by them. It is well settled that no mandamus can be issued against the statutory authorities forbearing them from exercising their statutory functions. 21. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners shall make necessary arrangements for obtaining the permits as per law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order copy. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar kvsg To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Secretary to Government Home Department (Transport) Chennai.9. 2. The Regional Transport Officer Chennai (East) Chennai.12 +1 cc To Mr. C.Rajan, Advocate, SR.1498 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.1761 W.P.Nos.35633 of 2003 rl [co] gkg/12.9