Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


St. Paul'S School v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT TAX No. 968 of 1999 [2004] RD-AH 499 (10 August 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.37

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 968 of 1999


and  another........................................... Petitioners


State of U.P. and another ........................ Respondents


Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble K.N.Ojha, J.

By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7.10.1999 filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioners further seek a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to charge any Tax or Additional Tax under Section 4 and 6 of the U.P.Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows.

The petitioners are the registered society which imparts education in the district of Gorakhpur.. It owns  9 Buses being Bus Nos. U.R.O. 9308, USB/4885, URO/9097, UP-53G/9980, UTT/7081, UP-53-H/3408, UPS/7261, UP-53-H/8990 AND UP-53-A/3900-Van which are duly  registered with the Transport Authority and the tax have been paid . It appears that on 19.3.1999 the respondent no.2 sent a notice to the petitioners directing them to pay the tax/Additional Tax as mentioned under Section 4 and 6 of the Act and directed that the said Taxes be paid till 26.3.1999, otherwise the Vehicles would be detained Under Section 207/1 and penalty would also be charged.

I have heard Shri Aroop Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.P.Kesarwani learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are  not liable to pay any additional tax as it is operating school buses owned by it for the purpose of carrying the students from their home to the school and vice versa. Thus the challan is wholly uncalled for.

Shri S.P.Kesarwani, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that in paragraph 3-D of the counter affidavit filed in C.M.Writ Petition No.274 of 2004 by Sri Abhimanyu Singh, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadohi, it has been stated that they are not demanding any additional tax . However, the question still remains as to whether the petitioners are  liable to take out permit for running the buses or not. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act, provides for necessity of  permits. It provides 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 authorizing him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used.

Sub-section (3) excludes the applicability of Section 66(1) of the Act requiring for permit for a certain class of vehicles. Sub-section (h) of Section 66(3) of the act before its omission by Act No.27 of 2000 w.e.f. 11.8.2000 provided exemption to any transport vehicle owned by, and used solely for the purposes of, any educational institution which is recognized by the Central or State Government or whose managing committee is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under any law corresponding to that Act in force in any part of India. Thus upto 10th August, 2000 transport vehicles owned  and solely used for the purpose of educational institution  was exempted from obtaining of permit  for running  them. However, from 11th  August, 2000 even the transport vehicles owned  by any educational institution is required to take out the permit. Thus  a transport vehicle owned and operated by an educational institution can be challaned if there is no  permit. It may be mentioned here that under sub-clause (n) of Section 66(3) of the Act, the State Government or Central Government have been empowered to specify any transport vehicle used  for such purposes to be exempted from taking out any permit. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not produce before the Court any such notification or order issued by State or  Central Government exempting the transport vehicle owned by the educational institution from the necessity of taking out the permits.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the authorities not to proceed with the detention of the buses and not to recover  the additional tax from the petitioners' as a specific plea has been taken by them in the counter affidavit that no additional tax is being demanded  from the petitioners. However, it can proceed in accordance with law in respect of the other items.

Dt. 10.8.2004



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.