Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 1323 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 10	 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3567 of 1965. Niren De	 Addl. Solicitor General and N. H. Hingorani	 for the appellant. R.K. Garg	 D. K. Agarwala and M. V. Goswami	 for respon dent No. 1. The appellant will be so entitled	 if it is held to be 'a railway '	 as contended	 on behalf of the appellant. The High Court of Allahabad	 in its order and judgment	 under appeal	 has held that the appellant is not a railway	 but only a tramway and	 as such	 not eligible for exemption	 from the tax	 in question. The short facts	 leading to this appeal	 may now be briefly set out. The appellant is a limited liability company; and it runs a railway	 between Shahdara	 in Delhi	 and Saharanpur	 in the State of Uttar Pradesh a distance of about 95 miles or 148.865 kilo meters. The appellant company also operates within the municipal area of Saharanpur. The company was	 originally	 registered as a tramway	 under the (Act XI of 1886) (hereinafter called the Tramways Act)	 on November 20	 1905. By Notification	 No. 5752	 dated July 5	 1907	 the Governor General in Council extended to the appellant company	 the whole of the Indian Railways Act	 1890 (Act I of 245 1890) (hereinafter called the Railways Act)	 excepting the provisions of Section 135. The Municipal Board of Saharanpur	 the first respondent herein	 imposes a terminal tax	 under the provisions of section 128(1)(xiii) of the United Provinces Municipalities Act	 1916	 as amended by Act I of 1918. Under the said Act	 the first respondent has prohibited the importation of goods	 within the local limits of the Saharanpur Municipality	 by rail	 until the tax leviable thereon	 or in respect thereof	 has been paid	 in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Board has also framed rules for the assessment and collection of Terminal Tax	 as authorized by the Government Notification No. 856/XI D.T. 3	 dated May 1	 1919. The rules have been amended	 as per another notification	 No. 5965/XI D.T. 3	 dated September 21	 1939. Item 2	 of Schedule B	 of	 these rules	 provides for a list of articles being exempted from payment of Terminal Tax. The said item is as follows : "Railway stores and materials	 which are required for use on Railways	 whether in construction	 maintaining or working the same and which are not removed outside the Railway land boundaries but not stores imported into Municipal limits for purchase and consumption by Railway employees nor stores with which Railway Cooperative Stores are stocked for sale to Member. " It is the claim of the appellant that	 till 1961	 the first respondent has never imposed any terminal tax	 on 'railway stores and materials ' required for use on the railway of the appellant company	 for the purposes mentioned in item 2 of Schedule B. But	 for the first time	 in January 1962	 according to the appellant	 the first respondent imposed tax on such stores and attempted to make the appellant liable. The appellant company protested against this levy	 on the ground that	 it being a railway	 was entitled to the exemption provided in respect of 'railway stores and materials	 which are required for use on railway '. But	 the first respondent	 by its order	 dated October 11	 1962	 over ruled the appellant 's objections in this regard. An appeal	 taken by the appellant company	 to the Additional District Magistrate	 Saharanpur	 under section 160 of the Municipalities Act	 read with the relevant Rules	 did not meet with success	 as the said Magistrate rejected the appeal	 by his order dated May 25	 1965. The appellant company filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3567 of 1965	 in the High Court of Allahabad	 challenging the levy of terminal tax and claimed exemption	 under item 2	 of Schedule B	 referred to earlier. The learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court	 by their judgment	 dated September 10	 1965	 dismissed 246 the writ petition. They were of the view that the appellant company was not 'a railway '	 but 'a tramway ' constructed tinder the Tramways Act. In this connection	 the learned Judges adverted to the Railways Act	 which defines both the terms 'tramway ' and ' railway '. It is their view that when a tramway and a railway	 are both separately defined in an Act	 a tramway cannot also be a railway. The learned Judges	 of the High Court	 then referred to the fact that so far as the appellant company was concerned	 the Central Government had not applied section 135 of the Railways Act	 though all the other provisions of that Act had been applied. They further held that a mere application of the Railways Act	 in whole or in part	 to a tramway	 will not convert the tramway into a railway and that	 in order to be a railway	 it has to be opened	 in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter IV	 of the Railways Act. So	 they concluded that	 inasmuch as the appellant railway was not opened	 in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Act	 it had been	 from its inception	 and it continued to be	 not a railway	 but only a tramway. On this line of reasoning	 the High Court further held that in the rules framed by the Municipal Board	 the expression 'railway ' must be intended to refer only to 'railways ' coming under the Railways Act	 and could not include a 'tramway '	 like the appellant	 opened under the Tramways Act. In consequence	 the claim of the appellant	 for exemption	 was	 according to the High Court	 rightly rejected by the authorities. The result was the dismissal of the appellant 's writ petition	 by the High Court. We shall now refer to the main features of the appellant company. The appellant railway is worked by steam	 or other mechanical power	 and is not wholly within a Municipal area. The railway line comprises narrow gauge track of 2 6" gauge	 and consists of main line	 transportation sidings and commercial sidings. 'Me line passes through four districts viz. Saharanpur	 Muzaffarnagar	 Meerut and Delhi	 within the provinces of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. The system has about 155 level crossings	 comprising of Special Class	 A class	 B class and C class. Some of the level crossings are provided with signalling and interlocking arrangements and the system takes in 406 bridges	 and 26 railway stations ' in all. The bridges and culverts are maintained	 in accordance with the instructions contained in 'Way and Works Manual ' of the Indian Railways	 and the railway stations are fitted with Morse speakers and instruments	 for working trains	 as per general rules applicable to all railways. There is annual inspection of the railway line	 by the Additional Commissioner of Railways Safety	 appointed by the Government	 to inspect Indian Railways. There are arrangements for through booking of goods and passengers. From 247 what is stated above	 it will be seen that the appellant company is a 'railway '	 as commonly understood	 and described in ordinary parlance. The Tramways Act was an Act passed to facilitate the con struction and to regulate the working of Tramways. Section 3(5) defines 'tramway ' as follows : " 'tramway ' means a tramway having one	 two or more rails	 and includes (a)any part of a tramway	 or any siding	 turnout	 connection	 line or track belonging to a tramway; (b) any electrical equipment of a tramway; and (c) any electric supply line transmitting power from a generating station or sub station to a tramway or from a generating station to a sub station from which power is transmitted to a tramway. " The expression 'order '	 under section 3(6)	 means an order authorizing the construction of a tramway under the Act	 and includes a further Order substituted for	 or amending	 extending or varying	 that order. There are various other provisions in this Act relating to the construction and maintenance of tramways	 orders authorizing the construction of tramways	 and other incidental matters. The Railways Act was an Act to consolidate	 amend and add to the law relating to Railways in India. Section 3(1) defines 'tramway ' as meaning a tramway constructed under the Tramways Act. or any special Act relating to tramways. Section 3(4) defines 'railways ' and is as follows " railway ' means a railway	 or any portion of a railway	 for the public carriage of passengers	 animals or goods	 and includes (a)all land within the fences or other boundary marks indicating the limits of the land appurtenant to a railway; (b)all lines of rails	 sidings or branches worked over for thepurposes of	 or in connection with	 a railway; (c)all stations	 offices	 warehouses	 wharves	 work shops	manufactories	 fixed plant and machinery and other works constructed for the purposes of	 or in connection with	 a railway; and (d) all ferries	 ships	 boats and rafts which are used on inland waters for the purposes of the traffic of a railway and belong to or are hired or worked by the autho rity administering the railway. " 248 This Act also contains various provisions relating to the opening of railways	 inspection of railways	 construction and maintenance of works	 working of railways and several other incidental matters. Section 135	 occurring in Chapter X	 containing supplemental provisions	 relates to taxation of railways by local authorities. That section reads : " 135. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment	 or in any agreement or award based on any enactment	 the following rules shall regulate the levy of taxes in respect of railways and from railway adminis trations in aid of the funds of local authorities	 namely : (1)A railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority unless the Central Government has	 by notification in the Official Gazette	 declared the railway administration to be liable to pay the tax. (2)While a notification of the Central Government under clause (1) of this section is in force	 the railway administration shall be liable to pay to the local authority either the tax mentioned in the notification or	 in lieu thereof	 such sum	 if any	 as an officer appointed in this behalf by the Central Government may	 having regard to all the circumstances of the case	 from time to time determine to be fair and reasonable. (3)The Central Government may at any time re voke or vary a notification under clause (1) of this section. (4)Nothing in this section is to be construed as debarring any railway administration from entering into a contract with any local authority for the supply of water or light	 or for the scavenging of railway premises	 or for any other service which the local authority may be rendering or be prepared to render within any part of the local area under its control. (5) 'Local authority ' in this section means a local authority as defined in the General Clauses Act	 1887	 and includes any authority legally entitled to or entrusted with the control or management of any fund for the maintenance of watchmen or for the conservancy of a river. " The point to be noted	 in this provision	 is that unless a notification has been issued by the Central Government	 under sub section (1) of section 135	 declaring a railway administration to be liable to pay a tax	 a railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in 249 aid of the funds of any local authority. Section 146	 giving power to the Government to extend the Railways Act to certain tramways	 is as follows: "146. (1) This Act or any portion thereof may be extended by notification in the Official Gazette (a) to any tramway which is wholly within a municipal area or which is declared not to be a railway under clause (20) of article 366 of the Constitution	 by the State Government; and (b) to any other tramway	 by the Central Government. (2) This section does not apply to any tramway not worked by steam or other mechanical power. " We have already pointed out that all the provisions of the Railways Act	 except section 135	 have been extended to the appellant company. The next enactment to be referred to is the (Act X of 1895)	 which provided for the payment	 by railway companies	 registered under the Indian Companies Act	 1 882	 of interest out of capital during construction. Section 2(1) defines 'railway ' as meaning a railway as defined in section 3	 cl. (4) of the Railways Act. Section 3 provided for a railway company paying interest on its paid up share capital	 out of capital	 for the period	 and subject to the conditions and restrictions contained in that section. There are other consequential provisions	 in this Act. The (Act IV of 1902) was one to apply the provisions of the 	 to certain tramway companies. The preamble to this Act IV of 1902	 stated that it was expedient to apply the provisions of the 	 to companies formed for the construction of tramways 'not differing in structure and working from light railways '. This preamble will clearly show that	 even as early as 1902	 the Legislature considered that though certain systems were called 'tramways	 substantially they did not differ	 in structure and working	 from light railways. The expression 'railway ' is defined	 in section 311(2) of the Government of India Act	 1935	 as follows : " railway ' includes a tramway not wholly within a municipal area. " It is to be noted that if a system	 though a tramway	 is wholly not within a municipal area	 that system will be a 'railway '. Entry 250 58	 of List 1 (Federal List) of the Seventh Schedule to the 1935 Act	 was : "Terminal taxes on goods or passengers carried by railway or air; taxes on railway fares and freights. " It is	 again	 to be noted	 that under this Entry	 in respect of a tramway	 which is not wholly within a municipal area and which will	 therefore	 be a 'railway '	 under section 311(2)	 the levy of terminal tax on goods or passengers carried by such a system	 will be within the competence of the Federal Legislature. Under article 366(20) of the Constitution	 the expression 'rai lway ' is dealt with	 as follows : " railway ' does not include (a) a tramway wholly within a municipal area	 or (b) any other line of communication wholly situate in one State and declared by Parliament by law not to be a railway. " It may be noted here that the appellant 's system does not come within the exclusions mentioned in cls. (a) or (b) of this definition. Entry 89 of List 1 (Union List)	 of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution	 is as follows : "Terminal taxes on goods or passengers	 carried by railway	 sea or air; taxes on railway fares and freights." ' It may be noted that the competent legislative body to levy terminal taxes on goods or passengers	 carried by the appellant 's system	 which will be a 'railway '	 under article 366(20)	 is the Parliament. The only other Act to be referred to is the (Act XXV of 194 1 )	 which was an Act to regulate the extent to which railway property shall be liable to taxation imposed by an authority. Section 3(1) of that Act provided that a railway administration shall be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority	 if the Central Government	 by notification in the Official Gazette	 declared it to be so liable. Section 4 provided for the Central Government	 by notification in the Official Gazette	 revoking or varying any notification issued under section 135(1) of the Railways Act. The learned Additional Solicitor General	 appearing for the appellant	 pointed out that the expression 'railway ' had not been defined in the United Provinces Municipalities Act	 or in the Terminal Tax Rules. In the absence of any special definition contained in the provisions	 granting the exemption	 in question	 the expression 'railway '	 occurring in item 2	 of Schedule B	 of the Terminal Tax Rules	 must bear the commonly understood meaning of 'a carriage of passenger and goods	 on iron rails '. By virtue of the definition	 in section 311(2) of the 1935 Act	 and the provision	 251 corresponding to it	 in the Constitution	 viz.	 article 366(20)	 the appellant 's system	 though registered under the Tramways Act	 was a railway. The mere fact that section 135	 of the Railways Act	 had not been applied to the appellant 's system	 is not a decisive factor against the appellant	 as had been assumed by the High Court. In view of the various features of the appellant 's system	 and pointed out by us earlier	 it is argued that the appellant 's system is a 'railway '	 both in law and in fact. It satisfies all the ingredients of a railway and	 if that is so	 the appellants are entitled to the exemption provided for	 under item 2 of Schedule B	 of the Terminal Tax Rules. On the other hand	 Mr. Garg	 learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board	 pressed before us for acceptance the various reasons	 given by the High Court	 for holding that the appellant is not entitled to claim be exemption. In particular	 counsel pointed out that there were two different enactments	 one dealing with 'tramways ' and the other with 'railways '	 being the Tramways Act and the Railways Act	 respectively. Therefore	 there were two diff erent systems	 under two different names	 namely 'tramways ' and 'railways '	 which was clearly known to the authorities concerned at the time when the Terminal Tax Rules were framed	 and so when the expression 'railway ' was used in the exemption clause	 it must have been the intention of the framers of the Rules to bring	 within its ambit	 only the 'railways ' constructed under the Railways Act. The appellant 's system	 though called a 'railway ' and though it might have ill the features of i railway	 it is pointed out	 nevertheless	 that inasmuch is it has been constructed under a different enactment	 viz.	 the Tramways Act	 it cannot be treated as a 'railway ' for the purposes of the exemption. Counsel also stressed that section 135 of the Railways Act had not been applied to the appellant. We are not impressed with the approach made by the learned Judges of the High Court	 for negativing the claim for exemption	 made by the appellant. It must be borne in mind that the expression 'railway has not been defined either in the concerned Municipalities Act	 orthe Rules; if such is the case. 	 the definition must hold the field. Going by the definition of the expression ' railway '	 containedin section 311(2) of the Government of India Act	 1935	 and the corresponding provision in article 366(20) of the Constitution	 the appellant 's system is a 'railway '. All the provisions of the Railways Act have been extended to the appellant	 excepting section 135. In our opinion	 if the appellant is a 'railway '	 otherwise	 the mere fact that the provisions of section 135	 of the Railways Act	 have not been applied	 is of no consequence. We have already referred to the fact	 which is not in dispute	 that the appellant 's railway passes through four districts in U.P. and 252 Delhi	 and that it has got all the features of a railway	 as ordinarily understood. In this connection	 we may refer to certain English decisions	 where the claim	 made on behalf of a system	 for being taxed at a concessional rate	 had come up for consideration. In Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company vs Thornton Urban Council(1)	 the Court of Appeal had to consider as to how far the Blackpool & Fleetwood Tramroad Company	 the appellant before them	 was entitled to the assessment	 at a lower rate under section 211 (1) (b)	 of the Public Health Act	 1875 (38 & 39 Viet. c. 55). The material portion of that section was : "the occupier of any land . used only as a canal . or as a railway	 constructed under the powers of any Act of Parliament	 for public conveyance	 shall be assessed in respect of the same in the proportion of one fourth part only of the net annual value thereof. " The question was as to whether the appellant	 in that case	 was a 'railway '	 to whom the said provision would apply. The appellant company had constructed and maintained a tramroad connecting two systems of tramways	 under the local Acts of 1896 and 1898. Various provisions of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act	 1845	 had been applied to the tramroad. The tramroad	 in that case	 was on rails laid on sleepers	 fenced off from adjoining land	 excepting at the level crossings of roads. The Divisional Court had rejected the claim of the appellant; but the Court of Appeal held that the tramroad was land 'used only as a railway constructed under the power of an Act of Parliament for public conveyance	 within the meaning of section 21 1 (1)(b) of the Public Health Act	 1875	 and that the company was	 consequently	 entitled to be assessed	 in respect of the said 'railway '	 at onefourth of its net annual value. The appellants contended that the tramroad was and could only be worked as a railway and was	 in fact and in law	 used as a railway	 and	 in consequence	 they urged that the tramroad	 maintained by them	 is 'land ' used only as a railway. The Court of Appeal noted that the rails were raised and laid on sleepers	 just as a railway is laid	 and that was the main distinction between the appellant 's system	 and a tramway	 which ran along public streets and in grooved rails. No doubt	 it was pointed out for the Urban Council	 that the appellant company had been incorporated under the Tramways Act and the very fact that certain provisions of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act were applied to the appellant 's system showed that the appellant was not a railway. The Court of Appeal held that it was impossible to distinguish the piece of tramroad	 owned by the (1) L. R. [190711 K.B.D. 568. 253 appellants	 from a railway and that the exemption provided for in the Public Health Act applied to the tramroad of the appellants as it would	 to any ordinary railroad passing through parts where it was not deriving the full benefit from the district rates in those parts. The Court of Appeal also rejected the contention of the Urban Council that the tramroad	 owned by the appellants could be treated as a 'railway ' only for particular purposes	 and not for the purpose of claiming the exemption under the Public Health Act; because	 according to the Court of Appeal	 a reading of section 211 (1) (b) of the Public Health Act	 showed that it applied to land used as a railway	 i.e.	 constructed as a railway in fact. This decision was taken up in further appeal	 before the House of Lords	 whose decision is reported as Thornton Urban Council vs Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company(1)	 and the decision of the Court of Appeal was confirmed. In the course of the judgment	 after referring to section 211 of the Public Health Act	 Lord Macnaghten observed	 at p. 267 : "Now it cannot be denied that the rails on which the tramcars run	 with the embankment or foundation on which they rest	 and everything that supports them	 do form a road or way	 and that that road or way was constructed under parliamentary powers for public conveyance. Is it 'a railway '? There is nothing in the Public Health Act	 1875	 or in the earlier Acts	 in which the same provision is found	 to confine the word ' railway ' as used in those Acts to a particular kind of railway	 or to limit the generality of the expression in any way. " His Lordship	 further observed at p. 268 : "It seems to me that if it is a railway in fact	 not differing from other railways in any material particular	 it is nonetheless a railways because the promoters in their special Act chose to call it a 'tramroad ' a very convenient term to use for the title of their Act and the name under which they sought incorporation. Nor is it the less a railway because some only of the sections of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act are incorporated in the special Act	 or because	 if one did not know what the thing really was	 the language used for the purpose of applying the sections which are incorporated might seem to import that it was not	 properly speaking	 a railway at all. You must look at the special Act to see that it confers the appropriate powers of construction. Every thing else in the Act is	 I think	 beside the question which this House has now to determine." (1) 254 In our opinion	 the observations of the House of Lords	 ex tracted above	 are apposite	 to the case on hand. We have already pointed out that neither the Municipal Act	 nor the Terminal Tax Rules give any special definition of the expression 'railway '	 and	 so far as we could see	 there is nothing in the said Act or the Rules to indicate that the word 'railway '	 in item 2 of Schedule B	 is used only to refer to a 'railway ' registered under the Railways Act or to limit the generality of the expression 'railway ' in any way. Under those circumstances	 if the appellant is a 'railway ' in fact	 as commonly understood there does not appear to be any serious controversy on that point it will be a 'rail way '	 notwithstanding the fact that it is registered as a 'tramway '	 under the Tramways Act. The legislature itself has applied the various provisions of the Railways Act to the appellant	 and the appellant also satisfies the definition of a 'railway ' under the Government of India Act	 1935	 and the Constitution. The provisions of the 	 have also been applied to the tramways constructed	 under the Tramways Act	 by the Indian Tramway Act of 1902. The second preamble to the last mentioned Act	 clearly shows that the tramways	 to which the Indian Railway Companies	 Act was made applicable	 '#	lo not differ in structure and working from railways '. The object underlying the exemption under item 2	 of Sche dule B	 to the Terminal Tax Rules	 is also not far to seek. The railways pass through areas where it is not deriving the full benefit of all the amenities provided by the Municipal Boards. Therefore	 in our opinion	 the appellant satisfies the definition of a 'railway '	 so to be entitled to the exemption provided under item 2 of Schedule B. Before we close the discussion	 we "	ill also refer to the decision of th House of Lords in Tottenham Urban Council vs Metropolitan Electric Tramways	 Ltd.(1). The same question regarding the eligibility of a 'tramway ' for exemption	 under section 21 1(1)(b) of the Public Health Act	 1 875	 came up for consideration in that case. From the judgment	 it will be seen that the company were working	 as a connected system	 a tramway and a light railway	 which were constructed in and along certain public streets and roads	 in the district of the urban Council. The 'tramway ' was constructed under the Tramway Acts and Orders and the 'railway	 ' under the Light Railways Act	 1896. Both were identical as to the mode of construction and materials used. The claim of the company in respect of the 'railway '	 as such	 for assessment at a lower rate. was accepted; but	 so far as the 'tramway ' "	as concerned	 the House of Lords held that it is not a 'railway '	 within the meaning of section 21 1(1)(b)	 of the Public Health Act	 1875. The (1) L. R. [1913]1 A. C. 702. 255 reason given by the House of Lords	 for not accepting the claim of the tramway	 was that in the great bulk of public legislation	 relating to railways	 the legislation has universally been understood and interpreted by Courts as applying only to that which is popularly known as a 'railway '	 and not to that which is Popularly known as a 'tramway '. And special emphasis is laid by the House of Lords that the legislature has used the word 'railways ' and not 'railways and tramways '	 in section 211 of the Public Health Act	 1875. We are only adverting to this decision to show that	 on the basis of an interpretation placed by the Courts	 the House of Lords held that the word 'railways '	 in the Public Health Act	 1875	 will not take in 'tramways '. But	 no such circumstances	 as pointed out by the House of Lords	 in the said decision	 exist in the present case before us. On the other hand	 the position is exactly the opposite	 as will be seen from the Government of India Act	 1935	 and the Constitution. Even applying the popular test	 adopted by the House of Lords	 in this case	 the appellant is undoubtedly a .railway '. In our opinion	 the principles laid down by the House of Lords in Thornton Urban Council vs Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company(1)	 apply to the particular matter on hand and	 we hold that the appellant	 being a 'railway '	 is entitled to the exemption under item 2	 of Schedule B	 to the Terminal Tax Rules	 in question. We	 accordingly	 allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court	 and further direct that a writ will issue	 as prayed for by the appellant. The appellant will be entitled to its costs	 from the first respondent	 both in this Court and in the High Court. G. C. Appeal allowed.

The appellant company ran a narrow gauge railway between Shahdara and Saharanpur. As it operated partly within the Municipal area of Saharanpur the Municipal Board of that place sought to subject railway stores and materials brought within the municipal area to terminal tax as provided by the Rules framed under the United Provinces Municipalities Act	 1916	 as amended by Act 1 of 1918. The exemption from terminal tax given to railway stores and materials by item 2 to Schedule B of the said rules was denied to the appellant company on the ground that it was a 'tramway ' and not a 'railway '. The company had been originally registered in 1905 under the 	 (Act 11 of 1886); in 1907 the whole of the Indian Railways Act	 1890	 (Act 1 of 1890) with the exception of section 135 had been extended to the company by the Governor General in Council. The Company 's claim that it was a 'railway ' entitled to the exemption under item 2 of Schedule B aforesaid	 was rejected by the Municipal authorities as well as in appeal	 by the Additional District Magistrate. The company therefore filed a writ petition before the High Court which was rejected. By special leave appeal was filed to this Court. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that : (i) in the absence of any special definition contained in the provisions granting the exemption in question	 the expression 'railway ' occurring in item 2 of Schedule B of the Terminal Tax Rules must bear the commonly understood meaning of a "carriage of passenger send goods	 on iron rails"; (ii) by virtue of the definition in section 311(2) of the Government of India Act	 1935	 and the provision corresponding to it in the Constitution viz.	 article 366(20) the appellant 's system though registered under the Tramway.% Act	 was a railway	 (iii) the mere fact that section 135 of the Railways Act had not been applied to the appellant 's system was not a decisive factor against the appellant as assumed by the High Court. It was not in dispute that appellant 's system had all the features of a railway. HELD:Neither the Municipal Act nor the Terminal Tax Rules give any special definition of the expression 'railway ' and there is nothing in the said Act or Rules to indicate that the word 'railway ' in item 2 of Schedule B is used only to refer to a 'railway ' registered under the Rail ways Act or to limit the generality of the expression 'railway ' in any way. Under those circumstances	 if the appellant was a 'railway ' in fact. 	 as commonly understood there did not appear to be any controversy on the point it would be a railway notwithstanding the fact that it was rep. C.I./67 3 244 gistered as a 'tramway ' under the Tramways Act. The legislature itself had applied the provisions of the Railway Act to the appellant	 and the 'appellant also satisfied the definition of a 'railway ' under the Government of India Act	 1935 and the Constitution. [254B D] If the appellant was a 'railway ' otherwise	 the mere fact that the provisions of section 135 of the Railways Act had not been applied to it	 was of no consequence. [251H] Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company vs Thornton Urban Council	 L.R. [1907] 1 K.B.D. 568	 Thornton Urban Council vs Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramroad Company	 L.R. [1909] AC. 264 and Tottenham Urban Council vs Metropolitan Electric Tramways	 Ltd.	 	 referred to.