JUDGMENT Mathur, J. - -This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Niamat Ullah for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order if the Regional Transport Officer, Allahabad, imposing the additional tax on the petitioner and also for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent not to realise the additional tax and to allow the petitioner to cam, the goods from this State to another without payment of additional tax. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner holds a permanent public carrier permit No. 2861 issued by the Transport Authority, Allaha bad, which is valid for the whole of Uttar Pradesh except the hill areas of Kumaun. The petitioner was assessed to road tax under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which he was paying regularly. Evidently the road tax had been assessed at the highest rate in view of the fact that he holds the permit for the whole of Uttar Pradesh and is entitled to ply his vehicle throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh except the hill areas of Kumaun. 3. The petitioner entered into a contract with a party for carrying goats and other public goods from Allahabad to Chirkunda via Arrah and Patna. Chirkunda is on the border of the States of Bihar and Pest Bengal. The petitioner, therefore, applied for a temporary public carrier permit for carrying the aforesaid goods from Allahabad to Chirkunda, and the Regional Transport Officer sanctioned the temporary permit on 28-3-1969. The Rcgional Transport Officer, who is also the Taxation Officer under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and the Rules framed thereunder, charged the petitioner a sum of Rs. 100.62 and Rs. 56.00 through Bank Draft for using the road in Bihar State. In addition, a sum of Rs. 421- was imposed as additional tax under Article VIII of Schedule I of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. 4. It is the imposition of this additional tax which has been challenged in the present writ petition. The main contention is that the petitioner holds a permanent public carrier permit valid for the whole of Uttar Pradesh and he could have plied his vehicle on the roads situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and consequently no additional tax was leviable. The main contention is that the petitioner holds a permanent public carrier permit valid for the whole of Uttar Pradesh and he could have plied his vehicle on the roads situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh, and consequently no additional tax was leviable. The imposition of tax for the use of the vehicle in the State of Bihar was not challenged. 5. Article VIII of Schedule I of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Act is as below :- "Vehicles plying for hire in respect of which a tax has been paid under any of the Articles IV, V, VI and VII when intended for use in special or temporary circumstances and for a limited period on a route or routes other than those over which they otherwise ply-in addition to any tax paid under any of the foregoing articles, a tax at such daily rate not exceeding Rs. 3 as the State Government may prescribe, for every day or part thereof during which it is intended to use any such vehicle in such special or temporary circumstances; Provided that nothing in this article shall apply to a motor ,vehicle which is temporarily the subject of a private hiring agreement for the purpose of specific journey; Provided further that no additional tax shall be payable if a motor vehicle does not use the road or roads for which it is. permanently licensed during the period it is temporarily allowed to ply on a route or routes other than those in respect of which it is permanently licensed." 6. Article VIII, as quoted above, makes it clear that the additional tax is payable if the vehicle plies for hire on a route or routes other than those over which it otherwise plies. To ply the vehicle on a different route or routes is always for a limited period and for use in special and temporary circumstances. The second proviso exempts the vehicle from additional tax if it does not use the road or roads for which it is permanently licensed during the period it is temporarily allowed to ply oil a route or routes other than those in respect of which it is permanently licensed. On reading the Article as a whole it must be held that it is the nature of the route or routes, and not the road or roads, which shall determine the imposition- of additional tax. On reading the Article as a whole it must be held that it is the nature of the route or routes, and not the road or roads, which shall determine the imposition- of additional tax. The point for consideration is whether Allahabad-Chirkunda can be treated as a route different to that part of this route which lies within the State of Uttar Pradesh. 7. 'Route' has been defined in Section 2 (1) of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act as below : ""Route" means a road or roads or part or parts of a road or roads over which a transport vehicle may be authorised to travel under a permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939)." Consequently, when the road for which a transport vehicle is authorised to travel under a permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act is altered, there shall be a change in the route, that is, the new permit shall be for a different route. In the instant case, the permanent permit authorised the petitioner to ply the vehicle only on that part of the road which lay within the State of Uttar Pradesh; and under the temporary permit he can ply the vehicle not only on the road situate within the State of Uttar Pradesh, but also roads within the State of Bihar.. The road or roads for which the transport vehicle is now authorised to travel under the temporary permit are different to the road or roads on which it could be plied under the permanent permit. The Regional Transport Officer cannot, therefore, be said to have acted wrong' y by treating the temporary permit to be for a different route and hence to charge an additional tax under Article VIII. 8. The matter can be considered from another angle also. In case the total altered route was situate within the State of Utatr Pradesh, and the temporary permit was granted for an extended route, the transport vehicle would use the road or roads for which it is authorised,, to travel under the permit and also the road or roads for which the temporary permit has been granted. As additional road or roads shall be covered by the vehicle, they must 'form a new route, different to the route for which the permanent permit was granted. Hence, additional tax under Article VIII would be payable. As additional road or roads shall be covered by the vehicle, they must 'form a new route, different to the route for which the permanent permit was granted. Hence, additional tax under Article VIII would be payable. The U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act makes no differentiation between routes situate within the State and routes partly situate outside the State. Therefore, the additional tax under Article VIII was rightly charged. 9. The writ petition has no force, and it is hereby dismissed with costs.