Judgment : One Raja Devaputhran Cunniah, a resident of Trivandrum, holds a permit for the vehicle KRV 7270 granted by the State Transport Authority, Kerala, to use the vehicle as an All India Tourist Vehicle. It can operate throughout India without any endorsement from any other State. Its liability to pay tax is only to the parent State viz. the Kerala Government. This had been paid and the vehicle had been used as a contract carriage. 2. The vehicle was checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade II, Salem on 26. 1983. A check report was issued alleging that the vehicle was coming from Trichy to Bangalore along with 35 adult passengers, collecting Rs.40 for the journey as individual fare. Based on the check report, the Regional Transport Officer, Salem, issued a show cause notice slating that the vehicle was being used as a stage carriage and hence the permit holder is liable to pay proportionate tax of Rs.3,267 for the month of June, 1983 to the Government of Tamil Nadu. On 8. 1983, the petitioner submitted an explanation that the vehicle had been hired to a travel agency as a contract carriage for a specified purpose and, therefore, no liability arises for payment of any lax whatever, especially when tax had already been paid to the Government of Kerala. This was not accepted by the respondent who passed an order in R.N0.69173/B4/83, dated 25. 1984, confirming the proposal and demanding a sum of Rs.3,267. It is this order that is challenged in W.P.No.7333 of 1984. 3. Similarly, the vehicle was previouslystated to have been checked by the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Grade II, Salem on 22. 1983. A check report was issued alleging that the vehicle was coming from Salem to Bangalore with 37 adult passengers collecting Rs.20 per individual. Based on the check report, the respondent issued a show cause notice on 13. 1983 stating that the vehicle was being used as a stage carriage and demanding Rs.2,683 as proportionate tax for February, 1983, to the Government of Tamil Nadu. On 6. 1983, the petitioner gave an explanation that the vehicle was not used as a stage carriage and that no individual fare was collected. The explanation was not accepted by the respondent who passed an order in R.No.l7390/B4/83, dated 25. 1984, confirming the proposal and demanding a tax of Rs.2,683. On 6. 1983, the petitioner gave an explanation that the vehicle was not used as a stage carriage and that no individual fare was collected. The explanation was not accepted by the respondent who passed an order in R.No.l7390/B4/83, dated 25. 1984, confirming the proposal and demanding a tax of Rs.2,683. It is this order that is challenged in W.P.No.7334 of 1984. 4. It could be seen from the above facts that the petitioner, respondent, the vehicle demand etc., are one and the same and the difference is only with regard to the month and amount demanded. 5. What the petitioner contended before the respondent in his explanation and equally so here with all vigour and vehemence, is that his vehicle had been hired to travel agents as a whole for fixed sums of money and if the agents collected individual fare from each passenger, the petitioner could not be made liable for the same. The further contention is that the collection of separate fares is not prohibited under Sec.2(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), when it defines ‘contract carriage’ and his vehicle plied between points without stopping to pick up or set down along the line of the routes, passengers not included in the contract. These contentions were, however, repelled by the respondents. 6. The lenability or otherwise of the rival submissions made may now fall for consideration. The tangle posed in these writ petitions is capable of solution, with case and grace, if the distinction between a contract carriage and a stage carriage is understood properly. Sec.2(3) defines ‘contract carriage’ as follows: " ‘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 whole at or for a fixed or agreed rate or sum- In this background and setting up of facts, the two writ petitions had been taken up for disposal together. .(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distances, or .(ii) from one point to another and in either case 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." 7. .(i) on a time basis whether or not with reference to any route or distances, or .(ii) from one point to another and in either case 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." 7. Sec.2(29) defines ‘stage carriage’ as follows" " ‘stage carriage’ means a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver 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." 8. The criteria to be adopted to distinguish a contract carriage from a stage carriage as set down in the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 991: (1965)2 S.C.J. 721: (1965)1 S.C.R. 841, may be usefully referred to here: “By Sec.2(3) a contract carriage is defined as a motor vehicle which carries a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a contract from one point to another without stopping to pick up or set down along with the line of that route passengers not included in the contract. A stage carriage is defined as a motor vehicle carrying or adapted to carry passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. 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 betwen 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.” 9. It is not at all the case of the respondent, that the vehicle was picking up other passengers en route, so as to come within the mischief of the above ratio. As we could see from the definition of ‘contract carriage’ by the collection of separate fares from the passengers, it would not lead to the deduction that the vehicle has been used as a stage carriage and not as a contract carriage. As we could see from the definition of ‘contract carriage’ by the collection of separate fares from the passengers, it would not lead to the deduction that the vehicle has been used as a stage carriage and not as a contract carriage. I am, therefore of the view that there are no materials on the basis of which the impugned orders could be sustained. In similar circumstances this Court in Krishnasami Chetty v. the Licensing Officer, 100 L.W. 654, has taken the view that collection of separate fares from passengers would not lead to the conclusion that the vehicle was being used as a stage carriage and not a contract carriage. 10. For the abovestated reasons, I am unable to uphold the impugned orders and accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs.