JUDGMENT 1. In these two writ petitions. the judgment of Board of Revenue, Ajmer dated the 16th March, 1973 (Ex. P. 4) and earlier judgment of 31st July, 1972 (Ex. P. 3) has been challenged. The petitioner owned two vehicles for transporting bottles to the various centres at Jaipur within the Municipal limits of Jaipur Municipal Council. 2. In these two cases, the present two writ petitions, the petitioner is concerned with vehicle No. RSL. 9005 and RSL 7757. In respect of this vehicle No.RSL 9005 it is not disputed that it is a light vehicle and it falls in the category of pick up van. The Board of Revenue concluded that it is a transport vehicle which falls in the category of private carriers. Having held that it is a light laden weight vehicle and a private carrier which is used for the business of the petitioners and not for hire or reward the Board of Revenue held that the rate of taxation under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1951 for these vehicles would be as per item A (IV) of schedule I attached to Section 4 of the Act of 1951. 3. The Board of Revenue rejected the petitioner's contention that this vehicle would not require a permit because the learned Member of the Board of Revenue was of the view that under Section 42 (3) (i) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 no transport vehicle can ply in a public place unless it is covered with a permit. 4. This view of the Board of Revenue was not adhered to and later on, another Member of Board of Revenue on 9th June, 1973 in Revision No. 18/71/ Motor Vehicles Act Jaipur held as under : "9. In this connection, it would be pertinent to mention that it was contended by the learned counsel for the State that the above point has already been examined by this Board in case No. 5/70 decided on 31st July, 1971 and the Board has ruled that such a vehicle falls under the above entry of Schedule IV. It was contended that on account of this ruling the decision of the learned Director must be upheld. Copy of the judgment was made available by the learned counsel for the applicant and I have gone through it. It was contended that on account of this ruling the decision of the learned Director must be upheld. Copy of the judgment was made available by the learned counsel for the applicant and I have gone through it. I find that the learned Member who pronounced this judgment held vehicle No. RSL 9005 a light transport vehicle, but he was not required to examine the effect of sub-section 3 (1) of section 42. As would be revealed from the preceding paragraphs the determination of the part of issue in the present case depends upon the effect of sub- section (3) (i) of section 42 and since the learned Member who pronounced the earlier decision was not called upon to give a finding on this point, the decision is not a bar to the taking of the view warranted by the effect of this section." 10. Next we have to see whether the view of the Flying Squad that this vehicle is covered by the entry in the II Schedule to the Act is correct. The Flying Squad held that this vehicle is a delivery van plying within municipal limits and falls in clause IV of Schedule II. In deciding the classification in which a vehicle falls for the purpose of this Taxation Act. the entire entry in the schedule should be taken into consideration. The classification cannot be interpreted by taking a few words from the clause. If we go through the schedule we find that in group B of IV Schedule of which clause IV is a part are included goods vehicles plying under public carriers permits. A delivery van plying within the municipal limits would fall under clause IV of Schedule II only if it fulfills the requirements of the group heading and is a vehicle plying under public carriers permit. The vehicle under consideration is, as already stated, a private carrier and not a public carrier. There is no question of this vehicle plying under a public carriers permit and hence the view that this vehicle is covered by clause IV of Schedule II is not justified." 5. Confronted with the above judgment of Board of Revenue, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that section 42 (3) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no question of this vehicle plying under a public carriers permit and hence the view that this vehicle is covered by clause IV of Schedule II is not justified." 5. Confronted with the above judgment of Board of Revenue, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that section 42 (3) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 populates that only exception in case of light motor vehicle can be made if the registered laden weight would not exceed 800 kilo- grams drawn by a motor car. 6. Section 42 (3) (i) of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as under: "(3) Sub-section (I) shall not apply -(a) to (h)-(not relevant here) 1. except as may otherwise be prescribed, to any goods vehicles which is a light motor vehicle and does not ply for hire or reward, or to any two-wheeled trailer with a registered laden weight not exceeding 800 Kilograms drawn by a motor car ;" 7. It would thus be seen that the prohibition for using of the transport vehicle in a public place without or except according to the conditions of permit applies to all vehicles except the various categories of the vehicles which are covered by sub-section (3) of Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. Clause (i) of Sub-S. (3) of Section 42 carves out an exception in the case of goods transport vehicle which is not plied for hire or reward ; second category of cases of two wheeled trailer with a registered laden weight not exceeding 800 Kilograms drawn by a motor car, would also come in his exception. 9. A reading of clause (i) of Sub-S. (3) of Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 would show that the requirement of weight not exceeding 800 Kilograms is for two-wheeled trailer and not for goods vehicle which is a light motor vehicle and does not ply for hire or reward or of other category. The condition of laden weight not exceeding 800 Kilograms clarifies only to two-wheeled trailer drawn by a motor car which is a separate category in this clause. 10. The condition of laden weight not exceeding 800 Kilograms clarifies only to two-wheeled trailer drawn by a motor car which is a separate category in this clause. 10. I am, therefore, convinced that the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate that the light motor vehicles, the laden weight of which is more than 800 Kilograms would not come in this clause (i) of sub-Section (3) of Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is devoid of any force. 11. The result of the above discussion is, that I agree with the view taken in later decision of the Board of Revenue and referred to above, and hold, that the light motor vehicle which can come in the category of clause (i) of sub- section (3) of Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles, Act, 1939, would not be governed by Section 42 (3) (i) and, secondly, would not require a permit. Since it would not require a permit, it would not be liable to be taxed as held by the Board of Revenue in the impugned order. 12. The net result is, that both the writ petitions supra are accepted and it is held that the vehicle RSL-9005 is covered by exemption and exception provided in clause (i) of Sub-section (3) of Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and would not inquiry any permit. Consequently the tax levied against this vehicle by the taxation authority and upheld by the Board of Revenue is quashed. In other respects, the judgment of the Board of Revenue, so far as it relates to other vehicle No. RSL 7757, is confirmed, as no interference can be made in respect of that vehicle. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******