JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner purports to be an Association of owners of Matadors and other various types of vehicles, described in the first paragraph of the petition. All these vehicles are stated to have been granted Motor Cab (Taxi Cab) permits from the State Transport Authority. The petitioners are aggrieved by a circular dated 26-11-1981 issued by the Transport Commissioner which was communicated by the Deputy Transport Commissioner to all the Regional Transport Authorities directing them to charge passenger tax from the Taxi cabs which are carrying more than six passengers. 2. The circular is assailed on the ground that it illegally provides for the collection of tax from these motor cabs. The contention is that as motor cabs are adapted to carry only six passengers (besides the driver), they go out of the purview of the U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam. The learned counsel submits that passenger tax could be collected in respect of such vehicles only which are adapted to accommodate six passengers beside the driver or if the motor cab is legally carrying more than six passengers besides the driver. 3. We are unable to agree. Clause (g) of Section 2 of U.P. Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 defines "Stage Carriage" as:- "Stage Carriage" means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six passengers (excluding the driver), and which carries passengers for hire or reward, at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey and includes any omnibus when used as a contract carriage." (Emphasis added). 4. It will thus be seen upon the plain terms of Section 2 (1) (g) that stage carriage means both when the motor vehicle is adapted to carry more than six passengers as well as when it is "carrying" more than six passengers. Even if, therefore, the stage carriage is not adapted to carry more than six passengers, the tax will be attracted if the motor cab is actually carrying more than six passengers for hire or reward at separate fares. 5. Learned counsel is, therefore, not right in contending that it is only if the motor cab is so constructed or adapted as to carry more than six passengers that it will come within the mischief of the definition of the "stag carriage". 6. 5. Learned counsel is, therefore, not right in contending that it is only if the motor cab is so constructed or adapted as to carry more than six passengers that it will come within the mischief of the definition of the "stag carriage". 6. At this point it will be useful to have a look at the definition of the term "stage carriage" in the, Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 and again as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the 1939 Act the expression "stage carriage" has been defined in the same terms as in the Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam. In the 1908 Act, however, there is a significant departure. Under clause (40) of Section 2 of this Act "Stage Carriage" means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers excluding the driver". It will be immediately noticed that in the 1988, Act "Stage Carriage" has a restricted meaning. It is confined to motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers. Significantly, there is no corresponding change in the Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam which continues to have wider or extended meaning. 7. The legislative picture is thus clear and unambiguous. It leaves no manner of doubt that so far as Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam is concerned, passenger tax is leviable on motor vehicles which may either be carrying or adapted to carry more than six passengers. The view that we are disposed to take finds full support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahin, reported in AIR 1967 S.C. 1424 . Commenting on the scope and effect of Sections 42 (1), 123, 2 (18), 2 (10), 2 (25) and 2 (33), their Lordships ruled that the combined effect of Section 42 (1) and the definitions of a "motor vehicle" a "public service vehicle" and a "transport vehicle" is that if a motor vehicle is used as a transport vehicle, the owner who so uses it or permits it to be so used is required to obtain necessary permit. Their Lordships stressed that it is the use of the motor vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward which determines the application of Section 42 (1). Therefore, whenever it is so used without the permit there is an infringement of the sub-section. Their Lordships stressed that it is the use of the motor vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward which determines the application of Section 42 (1). Therefore, whenever it is so used without the permit there is an infringement of the sub-section. The dictum fully applies to the controversy in hand and furnishes a complete answer to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The second submission of the learned counsel is equally unacceptable. The argument was that the term "carrying" used in clause (g) of Section 2 of Motor Gadi (Yatri Kar) Adhiniyam, 1962 should be read to mean legally carrying. We find no justification cither upon the plain language of the statute or the object and the scheme of the enactment to read into the definition of "stage carriage" a further requirement that it is only when the motor cab is legally carrying more than six passengers besides the driver, that, the tax will be attracted. Such a construction would plainly encourage wholesole evasion of the tax by the transporters indulging in open breach of the law. Indeed keeping in view the terms and conditions imposed for the grant of permits of motor cabs, it is impossible to conceive a situation where it may be stated to be "legally" carrying more than six passengers. 8.1. Thus, in either view, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands discharged.