Judgment : As both the writ petitions involve common question of law, they are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. Brief facts leading to W.P. No. 7371 of 2001 are as follows: The petitioner is a charitable trust engaged in the activities of providing services in the field of education, health, income generation, women empowerment, environment protection to the rural hamlets of Nilgiris District. The trust has been in this field for more than three decades. The location of the trust is in highlands of Nilgiris. The terrain in these areas is rough and mountainous and reaching the far and scattered hamlets in these areas is indeed difficult. It is the case of the petitioner that to commute in these areas, one needs a vehicle which can withstand the harsh environment and rough terrain of the region. The ideal vehicle for this purpose is a vehicle in the class of jeep as it is specially manufactured for use in these rough terrain and therefore, the petitioner purchased a Mahindra Marshall Jeep with seating capacity of 10 persons, including the driver. 3. The petitioner has further submitted the dealer had temporarily registered the said vehicle with the Joint Road Transport Office, Coimbatore on 13.2.2001, bearing Temporary Registration No.TN-37/T-4521 as a private vehicle. Subsequently, when the vehicle was taken to the Regional Transport Office in Ooty for the permanent registration, the Registering Authority has refused to register the said vehicle as “private vehicle” and instructed the petitioner to obtain a permit for the said vehicle, as it would come under the purview of Sections 2(33)and 2(47)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by virtue of the notice issued by the Special Commissioner of Transport, Chennai. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Regional Transport Officer has failed to recognise that the letter dated 20.5.2000 of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, is meant only for the companies and Corporations and not for organizations like the NGOs and Charitable Trusts. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the Regional Transport Officer has failed to recognise that the letter dated 20.5.2000 of the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, is meant only for the companies and Corporations and not for organizations like the NGOs and Charitable Trusts. The reasons set out in the letter dated 20.5.2000 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Chennai, pursuant to the circular issued by the Government of India, dated 15.3.2000 are as follows: “Whenever such vehicles are registered in the name of the Company, the intention is obvious that these vehicles are necessarily to be used for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with the trade of business otherwise than for hire or rent. Such vehicles should be registered only as a private service vehicle and necessary permits should also be obtained under Section 66(1)of the Motor Vehicles Act.” 4. The petitioner has further submitted that the letter of the Commissioner of Transport, dated 20.5.2000 is prima facieerroneous, in that the issuing authority has erroneously assumed that any vehicle with a seating capacity of more than six persons purchased by a company and registered in its name will be used only for the purpose of transporting persons for or in connection with trade of business of the company. The petitioner has submitted that insofar as Trust is concerned, no provisions have been laid down in the Act or in the Governmental order about the vehicles bought and registered by the Trust. 5. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that if the vehicle has to be registered in terms of the letter dated 20.5.2005 then the trust will have to obtain a permit to use the vehicle. Further, the permit would attract the provision of Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, whereby the vehicle will have to be run only on a specified route and compulsorily on a daily basis, failing which, the authority may suspend or cancel the permit. Since the vehicle has been bought for use of trust, there is no requirement to adhere to the aforesaid conditions, as the trust does not come under the purview of the said provisions of the Government Order. 6. Since the vehicle has been bought for use of trust, there is no requirement to adhere to the aforesaid conditions, as the trust does not come under the purview of the said provisions of the Government Order. 6. Brief facts leading to W.P. No 15683 of 2000 are as follows: The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacture of needles and incorporated under the Companies Act, purchased a Toyota Qualis on 27.3.2000 from the dealer, Annamali Toyoto, Coimbatore with a seating capacity of 10 persons excluding the driver, for the use of its Director. The dealer had temporarily registered the said vehicle with the Joint Road Transport‘ Office, Coimbatore on 12.6.2000 bearing Temporary Registration No. TN38/TA-6528 as a private vehicle. The petitioner hascontended that the vehicle had been purchased by the Company for the personal use of the Director of the Company as a perquisite and it is consistent with the provisions of the Companies Act and therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle has been used or will be used for carrying persons for or in connection with the trade or business of the company. 7. Ms. Geethiara, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted that the communication dated 20.5.2000 is not based on cogent reasons and it is very speculative in nature that the vehicles purchased by the Trust/Company are necessarily to be used for the purpose of carrying persons, for or in connection with trade or business. According to her, the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai-5 has failed to consider that the Trust/Company is a juristic person and is not different from an individual and therefore, the purchase of the vehicle by the Trust/Company cannot stand in a different footing from that of an individual, unless the vehicle is used exclusively for commercial purpose, it cannot be brought within the purview of “Private Service Vehicle.” 8. Referring to Sections 2(33)and 2(47)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle purchased by the Trust/Company would not fall within the definition of “Private Service Vehicle” and therefore, there is no need to obtain a permit under Section 66of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, the vehicle can be operated only in an authorised route, subject to the renewal of fitness and such other requirement as per the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder and this restricts the mobility of the companys Director. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted the vehicle, Mahindra Marshal Jeep is purchased for the use of the Trust for carrying out its objectives, such as education, health, income generation, women empowerment, environment protection, etc. There is no commercial activity involved and therefore, the vehicle is not used for the purpose of carrying persons by or on behalf of the owner, for or in connection with trade or business. In respect of the vehicle, Toyota Qualis, purchased by Needles India Ltd. Company, the petitioner in W.P. No. 15683 of 2000, she submitted that the vehicle is purchased for the exclusive use of the Director of the Company as a perquisite and the same cannot be brought under the definition of “Private Service Vehicle.” 10. A. Arumugam learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that the vehicles purchased by the Trust/Company have a seating capacity of more than six persons, are used for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward and therefore, squarely fall within the definition of “Private Service Vehicle, which require permits under Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submitted that there is no ambiguity in the communication dated 20.9.2000, issued by the Transport Commissioner, Chennai and it is applicable to the vehicles owned by the petitioners. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. For adjudicating the issue, it is relevant to extract certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. For adjudicating the issue, it is relevant to extract certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. “Transport Vehicle” as per Section 2(47)of the Act, “means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.” “Private Service Vehicle”, as per Section 2(33)of the Act, means “a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include a motor vehicle used for public purposes.” “Public Service Vehicle” as per Section 2(35)of the Act, means “any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage.” 12. Section 66 of the Act deals with necessity for permits and reads as follows: “66. Necessity for permits: ( 1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as the contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. (2) The holder of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle, for the drawing of any trailer or semi-trailer not owned by him, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed: (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply- (a) to any transport vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise; (b) to any transport vehicle owned by a local authority or by a person acting under contract with a local authority and used solely for road cleansing, road watering or conservancy purposes; (c) to any transport vehicle used solely for police, fire brigade or ambulance purposes; (d) to any transport vehicle used solely for the conveyance of corpses and the mourners accompanying the corpses; (e) to any transport vehicle used for towing a disabled vehicle or for removing goods from a disabled vehicle to a place of safety; (f) to any transport vehicle used for any other public purposes as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf; (g) to any transport vehicle used by a person who manufactures or deals in motor vehicles or builds bodies for attachment to chassis, solely for such purposes and in accordance with such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf; (h) (…. ….…) (i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms; (j) subject to such conditions as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, to any transport vehicle purchased in one State and proceeding to a place, situated in that State or in any other State, without carrying any passenger or goods; (k) to any transport vehicle which has been temporarily registered under Section 43 while proceeding empty to any place for the purpose of registration of the vehicle; (l) (….….) (m) to any transport vehicle which, owing to flood, earthquake, or any other natural calamity, obstruction on road, or unforeseen circumstances is required to be diverted through any other route, whether within or outside the State, with a view to enabling it to reach its destination; (n) to any transport vehicle used for such purposes as the Central or State Government may, by order, specify; (o) to any transport vehicle which is subject to a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement and which owing to the default of the owner has been taken possession of by or on behalf of, the person with whom the owner has entered into such agreement, to enable such motor vehicle to reach its destination; or (p) to any transport vehicle while proceeding empty to any place for purpose of repair. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (l) shall, if the State Government by rule made under Section 96 so prescribes, apply to any motor vehicle adapted to carry more than nine persons excluding the driver.” Provided that the holder of a permit of any articulated vehicle may use the prime-mover of that articulated vehicle for any other semi-trailer. 13. The circular, dated 20.5. 2000 issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai-5, pursuant to the Government of Indias letter, is as follows: “I invite your personal attention to the reference date and I enclose a copy of letter 4th cited. In the side letter the Government of India have withdrawn the circular instructions issued on 22.7.1998 and clarified that while considering the Registration of vehicles having seating capacity of six passengers and above excluding the driver in the name of the company it may be classified as “Transport Vehicle” on as per Section 2(47)read with Section 2(33)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of the above clarification issued by the Government of India the instructions issued this office circular 3rd cited is hereby withdrawn and following the revised instructions are issued. Whenever such vehicles are registered in the name of such companies the intention is obvious that these vehicles are necessarily to be used for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward. As such the usage of the vehicle attracts the provisions of Section 2(33)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for use as a private service vehicle. Hence necessary application forms have to be obtained and processed at the time of registration itself. Such vehicles should be registered only as a private service vehicle and necessary permits should also be issued on obtaining application to the effect simultaneously, and therefore it requires permit under Section 66(1)of the M.V. Act, 1988. I request you to send the acknowledgment for the receipt of the circular to the Zonal Deputy Transport Commissioners and Joint Transport Commissioner, Chennai-17. The Zonal Deputy Transport Commissioners and Joint Transport Commissioner, Chennai-17 are requested to send their acknowledgment to this office at an early date.” 14. Let me first deal with the case of the petitioner in W.P. No. 7371 of 2001, who is said to be a charitable trust engaged in the activities of providing service in education, health, income generation, women empowerment, environment protection to the rural hamlets of Nilgiris. Their main contention is that the vehicle owned by them is used to commute persons only for carrying out the objectives of the trust. The petitioner is not carrying on any trade or business, that the question of using the vehicle for or in connection with the trade or business, does not arise and therefore, the vehicle does not fall within the definition of “Private Service Vehicle.” The activities of the Trust cannot be brought within the term “trade” used in Section 2(33)of the Act. 15. The words “trade or business” in Section 2(33)have not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. Assuming that the petitioner is not engaged in trade it has to be considered as to whether the activities of the trust can be brought within the purview of business. 15. The words “trade or business” in Section 2(33)have not been defined in the Motor Vehicles Act. Assuming that the petitioner is not engaged in trade it has to be considered as to whether the activities of the trust can be brought within the purview of business. Business as defined in ‘CHAMBERS DICTIONARY‘, is as follows: “employment; a trade, profession or occupation; attention; dealings, commercial activity; a commercial or industrial operation; a commercial or industrial concern; the level of commercial activity; ones concerns of affairs; a matter or affair; a complex, difficult or awkward matter or affair; action as distinguished from dialogue (theatre); thing, used quite indefinitely, sort of thing, the state of being busy. 16. Business as per OXFORD DICTIONARY, means, a persons regular occupation or trade, work to be done or matters to be attended to, a persons concern, commercial activity, a commercial organization, a difficult or problematic matter, an excellent person or thing, actions other than dialogue in a play. 17. An extract of the judgment in Smith v. Anderson 1880 Vol. XV Chancery Division, 247 at Smith v. Anderson 258, would be, relevant to understand the meaning of the word “business”, “Now “business” itself is a word of large and indefinite import. I have before me the last edition of DR. JOHNSON, edited by DR. LATHAM, and there the first meaning given of it is, “Employment, transaction of affairs”; the second, “an affair”; the third, “subject of business, affair, or object which engages the care.” Then there are some other meanings, and the sixth is, “something to be transacted.” The seventh is, “something required to be done.” Then taking the last edition of the IMPERIAL DICTIONARY, which is a very good dictionary, we find it a little more definite, but with a remark which, is worth reading: “Business, employment; that which occupies the time and attention and labour of men for the purpose of profit or improvement.” That is to say, anything which occupies the time and attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit is business. It is a word of extensive use and indefinite signification. Then, “Business is a particular occupation, as agriculture, trade, mechanics, art, or profession, and when used in connection with particular employments it admits of the plural that is, businesses.” 18. It is a word of extensive use and indefinite signification. Then, “Business is a particular occupation, as agriculture, trade, mechanics, art, or profession, and when used in connection with particular employments it admits of the plural that is, businesses.” 18. In Rolls v. Miller Rolls v. Miller Rolls v. Miller 53 LJ Ch.101=1881-1885, ALL ENGLAND LAW REPORTS REPRINTS Rolls v. Miller Rolls v. Miller Rolls v. Miller Pg. 915, it is held that, the words “trade and business” cannot be read as synonymous. It is not essential that there should be payment in order to constitute a business, and the mere fact that there is payment under certain circumstances, does not necessarily make a thing, a business which, if there were no payment, would not be a business. 19. “Business” is that which occupies a persons thoughts as well as his time and powers. It could be a systematic activity done continuously by the application of labour or skill and need not always be with profit motive. It could be a regular transaction of affairs of a juristic person which occupies time and attention and labour of men for the purpose of profit or improvement. The word “Business”, in Section 2(33)of the Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted in the context of the statute in which it occurs and not in the context of other statutes or in a manner alien to the context of the statute concerned. The word, business occurs in the Motor vehicles Actis withreference, to a class of vehicle, viz., “Public Service Vehicle”, constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver, ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, in connection with his trade or business other than for hire or reward. 20. Therefore, when the petitioners trust is engaged in a systematic and continuous activity of providing services in education, health, income generation, women empowerment, environment protection by application of labour or skill spending considerable time for improvement), there is transaction of affairs, (requiring attention and care and it may be even without any profit motive. Therefore in my considered view, the petitioner-trust is engaged in business, which is not trade. 21. In Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S. T. O Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S. T. O Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Therefore in my considered view, the petitioner-trust is engaged in business, which is not trade. 21. In Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S. T. O Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S. T. O Tata Engg. and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. S. T. O AIR 1979 SC 343 : (1979) 1 SCC 208 , the Supreme Court explained the term “Public Service Vehicle” under the-Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959 and held that the term “Public Service Vehicle” has not been defined in any other Act or by the Rules, but having regard to the Preamble of the Act, tax can be levied only on passengers who are carried by a stage carriage which is of the nature of a “Public Service Vehicle.” The word “public” has got a well known connotation and means a carriage to which any member of the public can have free access on payment of the usual charges. It cannot be any process of reasoning or stretch of imagination to be deemed to include employees of a private company who are given facilities not as members of the public but as holding a special status, namely, the employees of that company. Thus, quapublic the employees form a separate class and cannot be said to be public as contemplated by Rule 2(i) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, which defines the Word “Passenger.” 22. Section 2(33)of the Act describes “Private Service Vehicle”, a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry on more than six persons excluding the driver and ordinarily used by or on behalf of the owner of such vehicle for the purpose of carrying parsons for, or in connection with his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward but does not include motor vehicle used for public purposes. A private vehicle owned by an individual is not ordinarily used for the purpose of or in connection with trade or business and it is meant for personal use of the individual, members of his family, friends etc., whereas, a “Private Service Vehicle” is one which is used by or on behalf of the owner for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward. Pattern of the user of the vehicle falling under these two categories are entirely different. Pattern of the user of the vehicle falling under these two categories are entirely different. It is the construction, adaptability and the use of the Motor vehicle for carrying passengers in connection with trade or business determines the class of vehicle. If it is for hire or reward and open to the public, then it is a “Public Service Vehicle” and likewise, if it is used by the owner of the such vehicle for the purpose of carrying persons for, or in connection with his trade or business, otherwise than for reward then it is a “Private Service Vehicle.” In both the cases, the vehicle is used as a “Transport Vehicle” and therefore, the provision enabling grant of permit for such class of vehicle, enacted for the purpose of controlling vehicles carrying passengers is applicable to the case of trust also. 23. Admittedly, the trust is located in an area where terrain is rough and mountainous and for reaching the scattered hamlets Mahindra Marshall Jeep, owned by the petitioner, with a seating capacity of 10 persons including the driver is used. The communication of Commissioner of Transport, dated 20.5.2000, directing all the Transport Authorities, to register the vehicles owned by the Companies as “Private Service Vehicle” and grant of necessary permits under Section 66 (1), of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be termed as speculative or based on assumption. Admittedly, the said circular has not been challenged. The above said Circular applies to the vehicles, having a seating capacity of six persons and above, including the driver and if the registration of the vehicle is in the name of an individual owner, the same may be allowed under the category of non-transport vehicle, but if such vehicle is used for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with trade or business of the company, it has to be registered in the name of the company under the category of Transport Vehicle as per Section 2(47)read with 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contention of the petitioner that if the permit is necessitated for the vehicles owned by the trust/company, the permit will attract the provision of Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules, whereby, the vehicle will have to run only on specified route and compulsory on daily basis, failing which, the authority can suspend or cancel the permit, is not tenable. The private service vehicle has to necessarily adhere to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Actand the Rules framed thereunder. The holder of such permit has to strictly follow the conditions attached to the permit. 24. As regards the contentions made by the Company, the petitioner in W.P. No. 15683 of 2000, though the vehicle is said to have been purchased by the Company for the personal use of the Directors of the Company, as a perquisite, still it is ordinarily used by the owner of such vehicle in connection with his trade or business otherwise than for hire or reward. The usage of the vehicle certainly attracts the provisions of Section 2(33)of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the vehicle if constructed or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver will fall within the purview of “Private Service Vehicle.” Section 2(33)of the Act is not to be understood to mean that the vehicle should always carry persons more than six, whenever it is plied on road. It is the construction and the usage, which determines the class of the vehicle. 25. In the light of the discussion, the vehicles owned by the petitioners trust/company will not come under the purview “private vehicle” and therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner to register the same as “private vehicles”, cannot be granted. 26. In the result, writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.