V. K. KHANNA, J. ( 1 ) THE question of law and facts involved in all these connected writ petitions are the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset have made a statement before us that they will address only one argument in all these writ petitions. Similar is the statement of Sri A. P. Singh, Chief Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents. It is in these circumstances that these petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment and writ petition No. 25646 of 1990 has been made the leading case with the consent of the parties and for the purposes of adjudication of these writ petitions the facts of the aforesaid writ petition No. 25646 of 1990 are being taken into consideration. ( 2 ) THE main controversy which is involved in all these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners, who are Mini Bus contract carriage permit-holders are entitled to pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey. ( 3 ) FOR the purposes of adjudicating the controversy in the present writ petitions it would be worthwhile to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter described as the "old Act") and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter described as the "new Act" ). ( 4 ) THE old Act recognised the following types of motor vehicles :a) "motor Cab"- means any motor vehicle constructed, adopted or used to carry not more than 6 passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward (S. 2 (15) ). B) "stage Carriage" means a motor vehicle carrying or adopted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fare paid by or for individual passenger either for the whole of the journey or for stages of the journey (S. 2 (29) ). B) "stage Carriage" means a motor vehicle carrying or adopted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fare paid by or for individual passenger either for the whole of the journey or for stages of the journey (S. 2 (29) ). C) "contract Carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum and from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of route passengers not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passengers may pay separate fares : explanation : "contract Carriage" does not include a motor vehicle possession of which has been temporarily transferred in accordance with an expressed agreement of hire for use as a private vehicle and which is used in accordance with the term of such agreement. Note: Explanation was subsequently omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 Act No. 100 of 1956 with effect from 16-2-57" ( 5 ) THE definition of the term "contract carriage" was amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 56 of 1969) with effect from 2-3-1970 and after amendment it read as under : "contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract expressed or implied for the use of the vehicle as a whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate of sum:- (I) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (ii) from one point to another and in either case without stopping to pick up or set down along with line of the route passenger not included in the contract; and includes a motor cab notwithstanding that the passenger may pay separate fare. " it appears that in practice even though the Transport Authorities started granting contract carriage permits to mini buses but in fact these mini buses were rarely plied as contract carriages but were being plied as stage carriages on even notified routes. " it appears that in practice even though the Transport Authorities started granting contract carriage permits to mini buses but in fact these mini buses were rarely plied as contract carriages but were being plied as stage carriages on even notified routes. Strict enforcement of the conditions of permits were enforced in the State of U. P. which resulted in a large number of minibus operators being thrown out of operation. The State Legislature, therefore, enacted U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976. It will be useful to reproduce the statement of object and reasons of the aforesaid Act :"a large number of "mini buses" were granted permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 for being plied as "contract carriages". In actual practice, however, they were rarely plied as contract carriage but where commonly plied as stage carriage. With a view to stopping this flagrant disregard of law the State Government issued strict orders for the enforcement of the conditions of permit. This lead to the throwing out of employment of a large number of minibus operators and also to throwing out of use of a large number of mini buses which could be put to productive use. It has, therefore, been decided that the operator of such mini bus may, on certain conditions, be allowed to operate on a specified nationalised routes subject to certain financial and administrative arrangements with the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation. It is also proposed to allow them to operate on certain new routes and on routes covered by scheme published u / S. 68-C of the Act. It is necessary to make specific provision in law for achieving the above object. "the mini buses were introduced as a different class of vehicles and the same have been definied in S. 2 (d) of the U. P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 (U. P. Act No. 27 of 1976) as under : "mini Bus" means Mini bus which is constructed or adopted to carry not more than 35 passengers excluding the driver. " it would thus be seen that "mini bus" was defined for the first time in the aforesaid Act which was intended to rehabilitate mini buses by permitting them to be used as stage carriages on the basis of authorisation certificate which could be granted u/s. 4 of 1976 Act on notified routes. " it would thus be seen that "mini bus" was defined for the first time in the aforesaid Act which was intended to rehabilitate mini buses by permitting them to be used as stage carriages on the basis of authorisation certificate which could be granted u/s. 4 of 1976 Act on notified routes. ( 6 ) IT may also be noticed that large number of permit holders of mini buses filed writ petitions in this court seeking for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondent Transport Authority not to interfere with the petitioners plying their contract carriage vehicles, and not to interfere with their right of picking up individual passengers at the starting point of journey over notified routes. Writ Petition No. 9553 of 1981 was filed on behalf of Sri Guru Bachan Singh and others which was connected with other writ petitions and was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the Transport Authority had granted contract carriage permits permitting the Mini buses to be plied as motor cabs. The Bench held that the only restriction which was placed on the petitioners vehicle was that it could not stop between one point to the other to set down and pick up passengers, ordinarily contract carriage permit holder is entitled to carry passengers from one point to another. It was specifically held by the Bench that if the contract carriage permit itself authorises the vehicle to be used as motor cab, the operator will be free to book individual passenger from one point to the other without setting down or picking up passengers in between two points. ( 7 ) IT is in view of the aforesaid decision given in the case of Gur Bachan Singh (supra) that the other Division Benches of this Court subsequently held that a mini bus contract carriage operator can pick up passengers at the starting point of journey. One such judgment of Division Bench has been noticed in the case of Akhilesh Kumar v. State Transport Authority U. P. decided on 21-8-90. When this matter came up before the Bench in the case of Smt. Samudri Devi v. State Transport Authority (Civil Misc. One such judgment of Division Bench has been noticed in the case of Akhilesh Kumar v. State Transport Authority U. P. decided on 21-8-90. When this matter came up before the Bench in the case of Smt. Samudri Devi v. State Transport Authority (Civil Misc. Writ No. 25781 of 1990) it was felt by the Division Bench that in view of the changed definition of contract carriage in the new Act, in the opinion of the Bench mini bus contract carriage holder could not pick up any individual passenger as he is entitled to pick up only those persons who are mentioned in the contract wherein the vehicle is engaged for its use as a whole. The Division Bench was of the opinion that the decision given in the case of Gur Bachan Singh (supra) and other Division Bench decisions require reconsideration in view of the changed definition given in the New Act. ( 8 ) THE old Motor Vehicles Act has now been repealed and S. 2 (7) of the New Act defines "contract carriage" as follows:-" (7) Contract carriage" means a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward and is engaged under a contract, whether express or implied for the use of such vehicle as a whole for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein and entered into by a person with a holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf on a fixed or an agreed rate or sum : (a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey, and includes : (i) a maxi-cab; and (ii) a motor can notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers. "from the new definition of the contract carriage it is thus clear that the following ingredients should be present before it becomes a contract carriage : (I) it should carry passenger. "from the new definition of the contract carriage it is thus clear that the following ingredients should be present before it becomes a contract carriage : (I) it should carry passenger. (ii) Such carrying should be for hire and reward; (iii) The motor vehicle should be engaged under a contract whether expressed or implied; (iv) Such contract should be for the use of the vehicle as a whole; (v) Such contract should mention the names of the passengers who will be carried in the motor vehicle; (vi) such contract should be entered into by a person with the holder of a permit in relation to such vehicle or any person authorised by him in this behalf; (vii) Such hire or reward should be on fixed or agreed rate or sum - (a) on a time basis, whether or not with reference to any route or distance; or (b) from one point to another, and in either case, without stopping to pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey and includes (i) a maxi cab; and (ii) a motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers. " if one sees the definition of contract carriage in the old Motor Vehicles Act and in the New Act, it is clear that the Legislature has specifically added more words to the definition i. e. the words "for the carriage of passengers mentioned therein these words were not there in the earlier definition. In the earlier definition the contract carriage was to include only a motor cab. Under the new definition a maxi cab has also been included. If one carefully tries to find a distinction between the definition of stage carriage and a contract carriage as has been defined under the New Act, it will be found that in case of a contract carriage there must be a prior contract, the passengers should be settled in advance and there is no stopping on the route to pick up or set down a passenger. But in the case of stage carriage there is no such prior contract, passengers are not settled in advance and the passengers may be picked up or set down at the intermediate stages. But in the case of stage carriage there is no such prior contract, passengers are not settled in advance and the passengers may be picked up or set down at the intermediate stages. ( 9 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Roshan Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 991 drew a distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage describing to definition between the contract carriage and stage carriage as follows :"the distinction between the two is this : the contract carriage is engaged for the whole of the journey between two points for carriage of a person or persons hiring it but it has not the right to pick up other passengers en route. The stage carriage on the other hand, runs between two points irrespective of any prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. "the addition of the words in the new definition of "contract carriage" that the contract will mention the names of the passengers who are carried in the contract itself, is according to the Chief Standing Counsel, based on the past experience of the Transport Department inasmuch as a contract carriage permit is obtained with the ostensible purpose of taking a contract party from one place to another place but very often persons who are not members of the contract party are picked up at the starting point itself or at intermediary stations collecting individual fares. Thus the contract vehicles ply contrary to the permit that is granted and are plied as stage carriages collecting individual fares, picking up passengers who are in no way connected with the contract party. The list of passengers is a very important piece of circumstancial evidence either to prove or disprove that a contract carriage is used as a stage carriage. From the review of the case law and from the close scrutiny of the definition in our opinion it is clear that in the case of contract carriage there is a prior contract by the passenger or passengers for the carriage to be used as a whole for a fixed or agreed sum. In the case of stage carriage there is absence of such a prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. In the case of stage carriage there is absence of such a prior contract and it is boarded by passengers en route who pay the fare for the distance they propose to travel. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has strenuously urged before us that there could be several contracts because of the mention of the words "a passenger or passengers" in the definition of the contract carriage. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Entire reading of the definition makes it clear that the contract has got to be one and it has got to be a prior contract before the motor vehicle is plied. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners laid great stress on the resolution passed by the State Transport Authority which is contained in Annexure 3to the writ petition. On the aforesaid basis it has been urged before us that as in the case of Gur Banchan Singh (supra) the petitioners vehicles were being plied as motor cab they thus were entitled to pick up individual passengers. Let us first examine the resolution which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the aforesaid resolution shows that at the time of the passing of the resolution the mini buses which were being manufactured by the manufacturers were of the capacity of carrying passengers from 8 to 20. The resolution clearly says that leaving aside all the areas and routes in which there is in prevalent scheme of contract carriages by the Roadways buses, contract carriage permits should be given to the mini buses liberally. It is important to note that it has been mentioned in the resolution that all the terms and conditions of the permit will be the same which are prevalent in the entire state in respect of motor vehicles while granting permits to them. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners want to read that the use of the word "motor" should be read as motor cab in the aforesaid resolution. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It clearly says that all those conditions which are attached to the motor i. e. motor vehicles in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh will be attached to the mini buses. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It clearly says that all those conditions which are attached to the motor i. e. motor vehicles in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh will be attached to the mini buses. Moreover, the actual permits which had been granted to the petitioners have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition would show that the sitting capacity of the mini buses in respect of which the permit has been granted is 35. Thus mini buses have not been allowed to ply like motor cabs. By no stretch of imagination to the petitioners case the decision given in the case of Gur Bachan Singh (supra) is applicable as the mini buses of the petitioners have not been permitted to run as motor cabs. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has laid great stress on the last part of the definition of contract carriage given under S. 2 (7) of the New Act which says "notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for its passengers," and on the aforesaid basis has argued that as there could be separate fares individual passengers could be picked up from the starting point. It was also argued that the definition is not exhaustive and it is inclusive and it may include mini buses. It has been further submitted that in respect of certain class of contract carriage vehicles the transport authorities are empowered to permit them to carry individual passengers. The carrying of individual passengers, according to the petitioners counsel, is an exception to otherwise contract carriage system - the main part of the definition in S. 2 (7 ). It has been conceded that the contract carriage vehicle can either operate on time basis or on a route but in both cases the vehicle will not pick up or set down passengers not included in the contract i. e. no individual passengers can be picked up or dropped. It has been urged that this definition is applicable to all sorts of contracting vehicles and include maxi cab and motor cab notwithstanding that different fares are charged from its passengers. This is an exception and according to the learned counsel this exception applies to the mini buses also. It has been urged that this definition is applicable to all sorts of contracting vehicles and include maxi cab and motor cab notwithstanding that different fares are charged from its passengers. This is an exception and according to the learned counsel this exception applies to the mini buses also. ( 14 ) IN our opinion the definition of contract carriage provided u/s. 2 (7) of the New Act is exhaustive and takes into its fold all types of vehicles which are permitted to ply as contract carriage irrespective of their size and seating capacity. The words "means and include" are generally used for inclusive definition and do not connote an exhaustive definition. However, if we look to the definition of contract carriage in the present case, we find that in the main part of the definition which applies to all vehicles certain conditions have been laid down for making it a contract carriage. Exception has been made in the case of maxi cab and motor cab notwithstanding that separate fares are charged from its passengers. Thus if we read the definition as a whole it would be clear that the definition is exhaustive. The main part of the definition applies to all the motor Vehicles and a motor vehicle will become a contract carriage if all the conditions laid down in the main part are satisfied. However, maxi cab and motor cab will also be included in the definition of contract carriage notwithstanding that separate fares are charged from its passengers. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that mini bus which was defined in the 1976 Act can be included in the definition of either maxi cab or motor cab. Maxi cab has been defined u/s. 2 (22) and means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six passengers, but not more than twelve passengers including the driver, for hire or reward. A motor cab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. In the 1976 Act mini bus means mini bus which is constructed or adapted to carry not more than 35 passengers excluding the driver. A motor cab means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry not more than six passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward. In the 1976 Act mini bus means mini bus which is constructed or adapted to carry not more than 35 passengers excluding the driver. The permits which have been granted to the petitioner also shows that the Legislature was conscious that mini bus was a separate class of motor vehicle and in case the intention of the Legislature was to include mini bus also in the definition of the contract carriage, we see no reason as to why mini bus would not have been included specifically in the last part of the definition of the contract carriage. ( 15 ) WE are further of the opinion that in view of the new definition of the contract carriage, petitioners would not be entitled to run it as a contract carriage with a right to pick up individual passengers. A bare perusal of the definition of the contract carriage would show that the definition is exhaustive. By no stretch of imagination the petitioners mini buses, if they are run as stage carriages, i. e. if they are picking up individual passengers, can come under the main definition. Let us see whether the petitioners case could be covered by the latter part of the definition of contract carriage. Because of the last part of the definition of contract carriage, it has been made clear that it would include a maxi cab and a motor cab notwithstanding the fact that separate fares are charged from its passengers. Petitioners admittedly do not claim themselves to be running a maxi cab. The petitioners cannot also say that their vehicles are motor cabs. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the definition of contract carriage has been changed under the new Motor Vehicles Act the ratio of the Guru Bachan Singhs case (supra) is still applicable, in our opinion, is not tenable. In this connection it will be useful to refer to the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Utkal Contractors and Joinery Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1454 . It has been held :". . . . . . . . No provision in the Statute and no word of the statute may be constructed in isolation. It has been held :". . . . . . . . No provision in the Statute and no word of the statute may be constructed in isolation. Every provision and every word must be looked at generally before any provision or word is attempted to be construed. The setting and the pattern are important. It is again important to remember that Parliament does not waste its breath unnecessarily. Just as Parliament is not expected to use unnecessary expression, Parliament is also not expected to express itself un-necessarily. Even as Parliament does not use any word without meaning something parliament does not legislate where no legislation is called for. Parliament can not be assumed to legislate for the sake of legislation nor can it be assumed to make pointless legislation. Parliament does not indulge in legislation merely to state or to do what is already validly done. Again, while the words of an enactment are important, the context is no less important. "we are thus of the opinion that the Parliament obviously sought to make the definition of the term "contract carriage" more explicit so as to specifically exclude the carriage of individual passengers not included in the contract. ( 16 ) THERE is no difference between a contract carriage with right to pick up individual passengers at the starting point of journey and a stage carriage with corridor restriction. A stage carriage with corridor restrictions picks up passengers at the starting point of journey and drops them at the last termini of the route without right to pick up or drop passengers on the notified route between two termini. A contract carriage with a right to pick up individual passengers at the starting point does the same thing as it picks up individual passengers at the starting point and drops them at the last termini. It is not disputed that contract carriage mini buses are operating on the nationalised routes. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumer Chand v. State of U. P. , 1986 All LJ 597 has condemned the practice developed in this State of allowing stage carriages with corridor restrictions on the nationalised routes. It is not disputed that contract carriage mini buses are operating on the nationalised routes. The Supreme Court in the case of Sumer Chand v. State of U. P. , 1986 All LJ 597 has condemned the practice developed in this State of allowing stage carriages with corridor restrictions on the nationalised routes. Relevant extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned above is reproduced below :"despite the statutory prohibition against any private operator plying a stage carriage on any part of the nationalised route in the absence of a provision in the Scheme of nationalisation, it appears that a practice grew up (we have borrowed the word practice from one of the judgments of Allahabad High Court, which was cited before us), in Uttar Pradesh, of permitting private operators to ply their stage carriages over common sectors of nationalised routes provided they did not set down or pick up passengers at any point on the common sectors. The "practice" was wholly unauthorised and without any legal sanction whatsoever. "if the contract carriage buses are permitted to pick up individual passengers at starting point, it will be doing nothing but plying as stage carriage with corridor restrictions which has been frowned by the Supreme Court in the case of Sumer Chand (supra ). By mere change of label what is prohibited cannot be permitted to be done. ( 17 ) FOR the reasons stated above, in our opinion, the mini buses cannot pick up individual passengers and can only run in accordance with the new definition of the contract carriage as given in the New Motor Vehicles Act i. e. they will have to enter into a prior contract which can be only one and can be express or implied but the names of the passengers which are being carried on under that contract have to be mentioned. This safeguard the legislature has put in for the purposes that at the time of checking the vehicle, it can be verified as to whether the vehicle is in fact, being used as a contract carriage or a stage carriage. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons stated above all the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. .