JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application on behalf of the Lakshmi Sugar and Oil Mills Ltd. Hardoi, Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicants are carrying on business of manufacture and sale of crystal sugar in their sugar Factory at Hardoi. They have got ten motor vehicles on which they carry the goods to the station and partly bring the cane from the field. It is not the case of any party that they are doing any business for tarrying goods for anybody else. Their vehicles are meant for the transport of sugar-cane and sugar in the course of their trade and business carried on by themselves. Out of ten vehicles held by them four vehicles have been granted permanent private carrier permits, while the other six have been granted "departmental private carriers" permits. On these six vehicles they have been charged under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act duty which is payable on public carriers and not on private carriers. These permits also had been treated as temporary permits issued for a period of four months and they were again reserved after the expiry of every four months. 2. The applicants say that they are doing their business of carrying sugar cane from the fields by means of these transport vehicles and they cannot be termed as public carriers and therefore they should have been granted permanent private tamers permits. They made representations to the Regional Transport Authority who did not agree with their contention. Their there was an appeal under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by those decisions the applicants have come up to this Court in writ petition. 3. The contention on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority is that under a Government Notification of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture if the Sugar Factory owners were to carry their own cane from the field then they are entitled to a rebate of three pies per maund per (sic) subject to a minimum of three annas per maund which the sugar factory is entitled to deduct out of the minimum sugarcane price of Rs. 1/7/- per maund fixed on the said Notification payable to the producer. 1/7/- per maund fixed on the said Notification payable to the producer. The contention of the counsel for the Regional Transport Authority is that since this rebate is granted for the purposes of carrying goods it should be deemed that it is in the nature of hire of the motor vehicles and the before the Regional Transport Authority was justified in considering these vehicles as public carriers and this Court should not interfere with that decision. 4. There is no provision for anything like "departmental public carriers" under the Motor Vehicles Act. This is a word, which it appears has been coined by the authorities for their own convenience. What the word denotes is difficult to understand. Under the Motor Vehicles Act the word "public carrier" is defined as under: "Public carrier" means an owner of a transport vehicle who transports or undertakes to transport goods, or any class of goods, for another parson at any time and in any public place for hire or reward, whether in pursuance of the terms of a contract or agreement or otherwise and includes any person, body, association or company engaged in the business of carrying the goods of persons associated with that person, body, association or company for the purpose of having their goods transported. 5. The definition of the "public carrier" shows that the goods must be transported by him for "any other person." Here the goods are not being transported for somebody else. The goods are purchased in the field and thereafter they become the goods of the applicant and they bring their own goods to the factory and therefore they cannot be termed as public carriers. The amount which is reduced is the reduction in prices of the sugar-cane. Consequently if a person brings his own goods, he cannot be deemed to be a public carrier. 6. Whenever any person takes his own goods by his own vehicle, he will always save a certain amount of hire or fare which he otherwise might have had paid to somebody else. When a private owner takes his goods from one place to another, he would not be said to be running a public carrier vehicle. It would be only when he runs the vehicle, for carrying goods for somebody else that he can be termed as a public carrier. 7. When a private owner takes his goods from one place to another, he would not be said to be running a public carrier vehicle. It would be only when he runs the vehicle, for carrying goods for somebody else that he can be termed as a public carrier. 7. As far back as the Full Bench case in Moti Lal and Others Vs. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1951 All 257 it had been held that the issue of regular temporary permits for years was not contemplated by the Motor Vehicles Act but in spite of that decision it appears that the authorities continue granting temporary permits for months together. The permits should have been permanent permits because the vehicles were not carrying temporarily goods for only a short period. Unless the applicant himself wants a temporary permit for a short period and the case comes within the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the granting of temporary permits is a violation of the provisions of the Act. 8. I accordingly quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 17-1-56 and of the Deputy Transport Commissioner dated 4-5-1956 treating these vehicles as departmental public carrier vehicles and direct them to act according to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The applicants are entitled to costs of this petition.