ORDER: Since the question raised is one and the same in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed of by the following common order. The planters’ Association of Tamil Nadu, Coonoor, Nilgiris District, aggrieved by the proceedings of the Transport Commissioner/ second respondent dated 1.8.1994 and the proceedings of the Regional Transport Commissioner, Pollachi, third respondent herein dated 7.1.1994 has filed Writ Petition No.17486 of 1994. The very same Association has filed Writ Petition No.6170 of 1995 questioning the proceedings of the second respondent dated 1.8.1994 and also for direction to forbear the respondents from demanding any Motor Vehicles Tax in respect of vehicles belonging to the members of the petitioner Association. Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Limited, Coonoor through its Managing Director has filed Writ Petition No.7111 of 1995 seeking the very same relief as claimed by the Planters’ Association of Tamil Nadu. Three private individuals namely, K.Kuppusamy, V.Anandhi and C.M. Joseph of Coonoor, Kothagiri and Gudalur respectively have filed other three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.9831, 10017 and 14900 of 1995 questioning the demand for payment of Motor Vehicles Tax in respect of vehicles used for agricultural purposes. 2. For convenience I shall refer the case of Planter’ Association of Tamil Nadu. The said Association is an Association of Tea, Coffee, Rubber and Cardomom plantations in Tamil Nadu. According to them, it has been formed for the purpose of espousing the cause of its members. For the purpose of carrying out agricultural operations of their plantations, the members of the petitioner Association own and use a number of motor vehicles such as tractors, trailers, lorries, trucks, etc. The tax levied in respect of motor vehicles is governed by the Act and all owners of motor vehicles are required to pay tax under Sec.3 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 at the rates specified for each type of motor vehicles as set out in the Schedule to the Act. However, the vehicles used by the plantations have been granted Private Carrier’s Permits with the endorsement that they are ex-empted from payment of tax under Sec.21 of the said Act. The object of Sec.21 of the said Act is to exempt motor vehicles used for agricultural purposes from the taxation provisions of the Act. The Government also has the power to grant special or specific exemption by virtue of Sec.20 of the said Act. The object of Sec.21 of the said Act is to exempt motor vehicles used for agricultural purposes from the taxation provisions of the Act. The Government also has the power to grant special or specific exemption by virtue of Sec.20 of the said Act. In exercise of this power, the Government has issued G.O. No.893, Home (Transport-I) Department, dated 20.4.1976 by which the Government has exempted tractors and trailers used for the transport of agricultural produce of persons other than the owner- cultivators from payment of tax leviable under the said Act. The only condition is that the motor vehicle should be used for the purpose of agriculture. While so, suddenly, without any notice, the members of the petitioner’s Association were served with a notice from the third respondent dated 12.1.1998 in which it was stated that the tax exemption granted to the vehicles owned by the Tea and Coffee Estates is not valid according to an audit objection of the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, Madras. Copy of the Notice has been forwarded to the Motor Vehicles Inspectors, Pollachi with instructions to seize the records and send to the office of the Regional Transport Officer (third respondent) and also not to renew the Fitness Certificate of the vehicles without payment of tax. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, several writ petitions have been filed before this Court by various Tea Companies. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner’s Association made a representation dated 12.2.1994 to the second respondent on behalf of its member plantations. The representation dated 12.2.1994 was followed by a further representation dated 21.3.1994. By an order dated 1.8.1994, the representation was rejected on the ground that tea is not an agricultural produce since it has not been included in Schedule II to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1987 and, therefore, vehicles which are used in Tea Estates cannot be brought under the cover of agricultural produce or agricultural purpose, and as such, these vehicles are liable to pay motor vehicle tax as levied. 3. 3. As stated in the earlier part of my order, the Planters’ Association of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation as well as three individual tea growers filed the above writ petitions questioning the order of the second respondent- Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 dated 1.8.1994 and the consequential orders passed by the Regional Transport Commissioner, Pollachi and the Nilgiris as well as Motor Vehicle Inspectors. 4. Deputy Secretary to Government, Home (Transport) Department, Madras-9 has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.9831, 7111 and 14900 of 1995. The stand of the respondents is briefly stated hereunder: Based on the representation of the Planters’ Association dated 12.2.1994 and 21.3.1994, the matter was taken up with the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Coimbatore and he has reported that the vehicles owned by Tea Estate Valparai were originally exempted from payment of Tax and subsequently based on the audit objection raised by the Accountant General, Madras, during 1982-83 to the effect that the tea leaves do not come under the “agricultural produce” and the exemption granted to the vehicles based on the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer was not in order. A reply was given by the second respondent to the Planters’ Association on 1.8.1994 stating that according to Sec.21 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, Motor Vehicles Tax is not leviable in respect of motor vehicles used for agricultural purposes. Agricultural purpose includes the transportation for personal use of the agricultural produces to and from the farm, the threshing field, the Rice Mill of the agricultural produce. According to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, agricultural produce means any produce of agriculture whether processed or unprocessed specified in the Schedule to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation) Act, 1987 and Tea has not been included in the schedule. Therefore, the vehicles used in the Tea Estate cannot be brought either under the cover of agricultural produce or under agricultural purposes and as such vehicles are liable to pay motor vehicles tax as levied and that therefore their request for tax exemption in respect of the vehicles owned by Tea Estate was not complied with. It is further stated that the Accountant General, Madras had pointed out that Tea leaves do not come under the agricultural produce and that the exemption granted to the vehicles is not in order. It is further stated that the Accountant General, Madras had pointed out that Tea leaves do not come under the agricultural produce and that the exemption granted to the vehicles is not in order. Inasmuch as ‘Tea’ has not been included in the specified Schedule to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, the vehicles used in the Tea Estates cannot be brought either under the cover of "agricultural produce" or under ‘agricultural purposes". Hence, the vehicles are liable to pay motor vehicles tax as levied. 5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Advocate for respondents. 6. The only point for consideration is whether the vehicles used in the Tea Estates are liable to pay Motor Vehicles Tax as levied or not? 7. There is no dispute that till the impugned proceedings, the motor vehicles used by the plantations have been granted private carriers permit with the endorsement that they are exempted from payment of tax under Sec.21 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 (Act 13 of 1974) herein referred to as the "Taxation Act"). It is the definite case of the Planters’ Association that for the purpose of carrying out agricultural operations of their plantation, the members of the petitioner Association own and use a number of motor vehicles such as tractors, trailers, lorries, trucks, etc. However, the vehicles used by the plantations are exempted from the payment of tax under Sec.21 of the Taxation Act. The Registration Certificates relating to the said vehicles also contain similar endorsement of exemption from payment of tax under Sec.21 of the Taxation Act. It is also the case of the petitioners that this has always been recognised by the respondents that such vehicles used in tea and coffee Estates are eligible for exemption from payment of tax under Sec.21 of the Taxation Act. Sec.21 of the Taxation Act reads thus: "21. Saving as to vehicles used for agricultural purposes: Nothing in this Act shall apply to a motor vehicle used solely for the purposes of agriculture. Sec.21 of the Taxation Act reads thus: "21. Saving as to vehicles used for agricultural purposes: Nothing in this Act shall apply to a motor vehicle used solely for the purposes of agriculture. Explanation 1: For the purpose of this Section, the expression" purpose of agriculture" includes transportation, for personal use, of the agricultural produce to and from, the farm, the threshing field, the rice mill or the storage house and to the market for selling and the expressions " agriculture" and "agricultural produce "shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in Clauses (2) and (1) of Sec.2 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1989). Explanation II: A motor vehicle used for transporting agricultural produce of persons other than the owner-cultivator shall not for the purpose of this Section, be deemed to be used solely for the purpose of agriculture. In Sec.21, the existing Explanation was numbered as Explanation II and Explanation I was inserted by Act 33 of 1993 w.e.f., 2.12.1993." As per Sec.3 of the Taxation Act, subject to the provision of Sub-sec.(2) tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State of Tamil Nadu at the rate specified for such vehicle in the Schedules appended to the Act. Sec.20 of the Taxation Act enables the Government to make exemption, reduction in rate or, other modification in regard to the tax payable by any person or class of persons by way of notification. As per Sec.21, if a motor vehicle is used solely for the purpose of agriculture, the same is exempted from the provisions of the Taxation Act. Explanation I in Sec.21 referred to above was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 33 of 1993 with effect from 2.12.1993. By pointing out the said Explanation I to Sec.21 and in the absence of inclusion of tea in the Schedule in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Marketing Act”), the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu brought to the notice of the respondents that in the said provisions, tea leaves do not come under the cover of “agricultural produce”; accordingly by the impugned proceedings, the second respondent called upon the petitioners to pay tax for the vehicles used in plantations. Before considering the said aspect, I shall refer the definition “agricultural produce” from Marketing Act. Before considering the said aspect, I shall refer the definition “agricultural produce” from Marketing Act. Sec.2(1) of the Marketing Act defines agricultural produce as follows: “2. Definitions: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (1)”agricultural produce“means any produce of agriculture, whether processed or unprocessed, specified in the Schedule; (2)”agriculture“includes horiculture, fruit growing, seed growing, animal husbandry (including breeding of livestock), apiculture, pisciculture and sericulture and”agriculture“shall be construed accordingly;” I have already stated that though the vehicles used in the plantations were exempted from payment of tax under the Taxation Act, till the date of the impugned proceedings, in view of the stand taken by the Accountant General with reference to the provision in the Marketing Act, the motor vehicles tax were sought to be recovered from the members of the Planters’ Association. 8. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to Sec.21 of the Taxation Act, would contend that the object of Sec.21 is to exempt motor vehicles used for agricultural purposes from the taxation provisions of the Act. That is the reason the exemption from payment of tax has been endorsed even in the terms and Registration Certificates. The Government have also issued G.O.Ms.No.893, Home (Transport-I) Department, dated 20.4.1976, by which the Government has exempted tractors and trailers used for the transport of agricultural produce of persons other than the owner- cultivators, from payment of tax leviable under the said Act. The scheme of the Act and the notification issued under the Act makes it clear that a special concession or exemption has been given in respect of all motor vehicles used for agricultural purposes, whether they are of an owner-cultivator or a person other than owner-cultivator. In other words, the only condition is that the motor vehicles should be used for the purpose of agriculture. 9. Learned Government Advocate by pointing out the new Explanation which is numbered as Explanation I to Sec.21 of the Taxation Act amended in 1993 by the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (3rd Amendment) Act 33 of 1993, would contend that in the light of the said provision, tea and coffee are not agricultural produce as defined in Sec.2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 and that the vehicles used for the purposes of agriculture including transportation of tea and coffee are not eligible for tax exemption under Sec.21 of the Taxation Act. The said contention cannot be accepted for the following reasons. 10. The Government of Tamil Nadu have enacted Act 13 of 1974 by consolidating the law relating to the levy of tax on motor vehicles in the State of Tamil Nadu, including the Madras Motor Vehicles Act, 1931 and passed Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974. I have already referred to the relevant charging Section as well as Sec.21 and the Explanation appended thereto. Mr.Vijay Narayan by drawing my attention to Sec.11-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Act, 1931 (Act III of 1931) and Sec.21 of Taxation Act (Act 13 of 1974), would contend that they are one and the same. He also brought to my notice that the Explanation which was the only Explanation to the un-amended Sec.21, and Explanation II of the amended Sec.21, of Act 13 of 1974, are one and the same. In this regard, it is useful to refer a decision of this Court reported in S.Rangaraju Naidu v. The R.T.O. Salem, (1962)2 M.L.J. 232 , wherein this Court, while considering Sec.11-A of the Act III of 1931, has held that the expression “purpose of agriculture” should not be understood as comprehending only the direct activities exerted in producing the crop. The expression is of wider significance and comprises all that is done by an agriculturist or a farmer to fulfill his agricultural objectives in a range of activities spreading over a vast compass from the fields to the doors of the market. It was held that the Explanation to Sec. 11-A was in the nature of an exception which made the legislative intent plain that the provisions of Sec.11-A should apply in all cases not exempted in the Explanation. It is also brought to my notice that in another decision namely, T.Kuppuswami Reddiar v. The Regional Transport Officer, Chingleput at Madras-17, W.P.No.1433 of 1965, dated 4.12.1967, it was held that even if an agriculturist used his motor vehicle for occasionally transporting agricultural produce of other persons gratis or for gain, the vehicle would be entitled to the exemption under Sec.11-A. It is clear from these decisions that transporting the agriculturist’s own agricultural produce by his own vehicle would be a purpose of agriculture. 11. 11. The new Explanation provided that a motor vehicle used for transporting agricultural produce of persons other than the owner-cultivator shall not be deemed to be solely used for the purposes of agriculture. Since the Explanation to the unamended Sec.21 was in the nature of an exception, as was held by this Court, the legislative intent was clear that the substantive provisions of Sec.21 shall apply to all cases other than the exception enacted in the Explanation. Accordingly, a motor vehicle used for transporting the agricultural produce of the owner- cultivator shall be deemed to be used solely for the purposes of agriculture. What the Explanation did was to make clear the intent and message of the substantive provision of Sec.21 which is corresponding to Sec.11-A of Act III of 1931, that purpose of agriculture will include and always included, the transporting of agricultural produce of the owner- cultivator in his own motor vehicle. 12. Though the Explanation to the saving Sec.21 was modified so as to exclude haulage of agricultural produce of persons other than the owner cultivator, a specific exemption was given under Sec.20 by G.O.Ms.No.893, Home (2-1), dated 20.4.1976 from payment of tax by motor vehicles used for transportation of agricultural produce of persons other than owner cultivators. It is clear that the position before Act 13 of 1974 was amended in 1993 by Act 33 of 1993, was that both the motor vehicles used for transporting agricultural produce of the owner-cultivator as well as the motor vehicles used for transporting agricultural produce of persons other than the owner- cultivator were exempted from the motor vehicles tax, the only difference being that the exemption given under Sec.20 was limited to tractors and trailers used for the transportation of the agricultural produce. The Section by itself will include transportation of all agricultural produce irrespective of any classification of the agricultural produce or the owner of the vehicle used for such transportation within the meaning of the term “purposes of agriculture”. Explanation I does not govern or limit the scope and ambit of Explanation II in any manner, and therefore, a motor vehicle used for transporting the agricultural produce of the owner- cultivator shall continue to be deemed to be used solely for purposes of agriculture and hence will be exempt from motor vehicles tax. Explanation I does not govern or limit the scope and ambit of Explanation II in any manner, and therefore, a motor vehicle used for transporting the agricultural produce of the owner- cultivator shall continue to be deemed to be used solely for purposes of agriculture and hence will be exempt from motor vehicles tax. The stand of the Accountant General based on Sec.2(1) and (2) of the Marketing Act and giving restricted meaning to Explanation I of the Taxation Act will make Explanation II redundant and otiose. If it is construed as restricting transportation to transportation of agricultural produce defined in Sec.2(2) of the Marketing Act, it will go against the object of the enactment and the Explanation I will also be in conflict with Explanation II when it seeks to bring within “purposes of agriculture” transportation of agricultural produce of persons other than the owner-cultivator which is totally barred by Explanation II. It is settled law that an interpretation which will make a statutory provision totally otiose and nugatory should be avoided as far as possible. Explanation I has therefore, to be construed by invoking the rule of harmonious construction and regarding that the two apparently conflicting Explanations deal with separate and distinct matters. The purpose of Explanation I is to bring within the term “purposes of agriculture” transportation of agricultural produce of persons other than the owner- cultivators but limiting the transportation to transportation of agricultural produce as defined in Sec.2(2) of the Marketing Act. The fact is that Explanation I does not control Explanation II. Such an interpretation of a statutory provision is not permissible when the Legislature has deliberately retained the original Explanation as Explanation-II after the amendment of 1993. 13. It is well recognised that an Explanation added to a statutory provision is not a substantive provision. In the instant case Sec.21 is couched in very peremptory terms. There is no dispute that the provision is to help the agriculturist. Hence Explanation I cannot be construed in a manner whittling down the effect of Sec.21 read with Explanation II. As rightly contended, the incorporation of the definition of “agriculture” from the Marketing Act cannot make any difference because that definition is an inclusive definition while defining agriculture per se. Hence the meaning of “agriculture” has to be understood in the dictionary sense, namely, activities in relation to land using human skill and labour. As rightly contended, the incorporation of the definition of “agriculture” from the Marketing Act cannot make any difference because that definition is an inclusive definition while defining agriculture per se. Hence the meaning of “agriculture” has to be understood in the dictionary sense, namely, activities in relation to land using human skill and labour. Using these tests the cultivation and raising of tea and coffee crops are agriculture. Explanation I has furnished an inclusive definition of “purpose of agriculture” in order to enlarge the meaning of that phrase occurring in Sec.21. Hence, the words “purpose of agriculture” will mean and comprehend not only such things as it signifies according to its natural import including the transporting of the agricultural produce of the owner- cultivator, but also those things which Explanation I declares that it shall include, namely, transporting of agricultural produce as defined in Sec.2(2) of the Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. Accordingly, I hold that the transporting of the agricultural produce of tea and coffee by a plantation in its own motor vehicles is not at all affected or limited by Explanation I. 14. The interpretation placed by the respondents will mean that while tea and coffee plantations using their vehicles as owner- cultivators for transporting their agricultural produce of tea and coffee will be denied the tax exemption, persons other than owner- cultivators transporting other persons’ agricultural produce defined in Sec.2(2) of the Marketing Act will be entitled to the exemption. Similarly, on the strength of the exemption given by G.O.Ms.No.893, dated 21.4.1976 under Sec.20 of Act 13 of 1974, motor vehicles transporting agricultural produce of persons other than the owner- cultivators will also be entitled to the exemption. As rightly contended, apart from such a position being absurd and anomalous, the interpretation sought to be placed on Sec.21 read with Explanation I by the respondents will render the provisions of Sec.21 bad in law and unconstitutional being totally arbitrary and discriminatory and being in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. It is demonstrated before me that the vehicles in question are used primarily for the agricultural purposes of ploughing, haulage of implements, manure and other inputs, raw materials, green leaf or coffee berries, etc. within the plantation. It is demonstrated before me that the vehicles in question are used primarily for the agricultural purposes of ploughing, haulage of implements, manure and other inputs, raw materials, green leaf or coffee berries, etc. within the plantation. It is further stated that any transport of the agricultural produce is confined to carrying the green tea leaf to the processing tea factory and the coffee berries to the Pulper Houses within the plantation. They asserted that these vehicles are not used for transporting the finished product of tea or coffee for sale to the market. Only the Primary agricultural produce ready and fit to be taken to the market for sale are covered by Sec.2(2) of the Marketing Act. 15. The Agricultural produce as defined in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 is confined to those agricultural produce which have been specified in the Schedule to the Act. It is, therefore, obvious that a number of other agricultural produce, which continue to be agricultural produce in the ordinary sense of the term may not be agricultural produce within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act by virtue of the definition contained in the Act. For the purpose of the Taxation Act, if the motor vehicles are used for agricultural purposes, such vehicles are exempt from payment of tax. Therefore, the definition of agricultural produce as given in the Marketing Act is irrelevant for deciding the applicability of Sec.21 of the Taxation Act. Further, even on merits, as rightly stated, except mentioning the audit objection, the cancellation of tax exemption granted to the vehicles owned by tea and coffee Estates without assigning adequate reason is not valid in law. Further, the petitioners were not given any notice either by the second respondent or by the officers working under him before passing the impugned proceedings. It is stated that the operations in tea and coffee estates are agricultural operations and that irrespective of nature of the produce or product of the land, whatever is grown on the land aided by human labour and efforts would be agricultural produce. It is stated that the operations in tea and coffee estates are agricultural operations and that irrespective of nature of the produce or product of the land, whatever is grown on the land aided by human labour and efforts would be agricultural produce. It is also stated by the petitioners that the plantations in the rest of the Tamil Nadu outside the jurisdiction of the third respondent namely, the Regional Transport Officer, Pollachi continue to enjoy the exemption under Sec.21 of the Taxation Act and no notice has been issued to those plantations. I have already referred to the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.559 of 1961, dated 12.1.1962 and W.P.No.1433 of 1965, dated 4.12.1967. These decisions would show that the petitioners therein are entitled to exemption under Sec.11-A of the Madras Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1931 which is similar to Sec.21 of the present Taxation Act. 16. In the light of what is stated above, inasmuch as the Taxation Act provides exemption for vehicles used solely for the purpose agriculture and the exemption not being limited only to Item of “agricultural produce” as specified in Marketing Act, I am unable to accept the stand taken by the respondents; consequently I accept the case of the petitioners and answer the point in favour of the petitioners. Net result, the impugned proceedings of the Transport Commissioner dated 1.8.1994 and all other proceedings of the Regional Transport Officers are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. No costs. All the W.M.Ps. are closed.