Judgment :- Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned. 2. Since the issues involved in the above writ petitions have arisen out of the same facts and circumstances, a common order is passed. .3. It has been stated that the petitioners in the above writ petitions are either societies, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or Companies, registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners have a number of vehicles, registered in their names and provided for the use of their officers. After purchasing the vehicles, the petitioners had temporarily registered the vehicles as private vehicles with temporary registration numbers. However, when the petitioners wanted to register the vehicles, the third respondent had informed the petitioners that the vehicles could not be registered as private vehicles and that they have to be registered only as private transport vehicles. Based on a communication issued by the Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, dated 20.5.2000, wherein it has been stated that the vehicles with the seating capacity of more than six and registered in the name of the Company come under the purview of Sections 2(33) and 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in view of a circular issued by the Government of India, dated 13. 2000. In the communication of the Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, dated 20.5.2000, it has been stated that whenever such vehicles are registered in the names of the companies, the intention is obvious that these vehicles would necessarily be used for the purpose of carrying persons for or in connection with the trade or business, otherwise than for hire or rent. As such, the usage of the vehicles attract the provisions of Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for their use as private service vehicles. Therefore, the necessary application forms have to be obtained and processed at the time of such registration. Such vehicles should be registered only as private vehicles and necessary permits are required, under Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. It has been further stated that the consequence of such registration as private transport vehicles is that they have to undergo periodical inspections for obtaining fitness certificates and they should either carry white number plates or yellow number plates as prescribed by the rules. The vehicles can be used only in the specified areas and routes. 4. It has been further stated that the consequence of such registration as private transport vehicles is that they have to undergo periodical inspections for obtaining fitness certificates and they should either carry white number plates or yellow number plates as prescribed by the rules. The vehicles can be used only in the specified areas and routes. Since the vehicles have been purchased by the Societies or the Companies for the personal use of their officers, it cannot be said that they are being used or that they will be used for carrying persons for or in connection with the trade or business of the petitioners. 5. It has also been stated that the communication of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport Chennai, dated 20.5.2000, is prima facie erroneous as it has been wrongly assumed that every vehicle, with a seating capacity of more than six bought by a Company or a Society and registered in its name would be necessarily used only for the purpose of transporting persons for or in connection with the trade or business of the said Company or society. Such a presumption is fallacious, as it is not based on facts and therefore, it is unsustainable in the eye of law. .6. It has been further stated that if the vehicles are to be registered in terms of the communication, dated 20.5.2000, the petitioners would have to obtain the necessary permits for the use of the said vehicles. Obtaining of such permits would by itself attract the provisions of Rule 172(6) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules and the vehicles would have to be run only on daily basis on the specified routes. On the failure of the petitioners to comply with the said conditions, the permits are liable to be cancelled. The refusal of the third respondent to register the vehicles as private vehicles is arbitrary and illegal and therefore, the third respondent should be directed by this Court to register the vehicles belonging to the petitioners, as private vehicles and not as private transport vehicles. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that as per the communication issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, in Lr.No.29068/H3/2000, dated 20.5.2000, (Circular No.107/2000) the Government of India, Ministry of surface transport Department, in letter No.11036/R1/1997, dated 13. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent, it has been stated that as per the communication issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, in Lr.No.29068/H3/2000, dated 20.5.2000, (Circular No.107/2000) the Government of India, Ministry of surface transport Department, in letter No.11036/R1/1997, dated 13. 2000 and the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1248(E), dated 11. 2004, it has been stated that all the vehicles with the seating capacity of more than six and registered in the name of the company would come under the purview of Section 2(33) and Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, pursuant to the circular issued by the Government of India, dated 13. 2000. The application for the new registration of the vehicles as private vehicles was returned requesting the petitioners to apply for private service vehicles permits as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 8. It has been further stated that when a Company used its vehicles, it would be used for its official purpose as its officers would be using the vehicles in their official capacity for its trade or business. Therefore, all the vehicles need periodical check up and the use of such vehicles would be restricted. 9. It has also been stated that the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, had by its letter in Lr.No.RT/11028/14/2002/MVL, dated 10. 2006, has clarified that the motor vehicles having a seating capacity of more than six passengers, excluding the driver belonging to Charitable /Philanthropic institutions /Company/firm or society should be appropriately registered under the category of transport vehicles so that they should undergo an annual fitness certificate test. Once the vehicle belonging to the petitioners is used by its officers, it is necessary to get a permit as it would attract Rule 172(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Further, according to Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, necessary permits have to be obtained for the transport vehicles. According to Section 2 (33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an applicant, other than the individuals, would come under the category of society or Company. Further, according to Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, necessary permits have to be obtained for the transport vehicles. According to Section 2 (33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an applicant, other than the individuals, would come under the category of society or Company. The vehicles belonging to the petitioners would be necessarily used for carrying the persons in connection with the trade or business of the petitioners and therefore, it is clear that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners in the above writ petitions are not sustainable. 10. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondents, in the above writ petitions and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court. 11. From the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the third respondent, it is clear that the vehicles belonging to the petitioners cannot be registered as private vehicles, as prayed for in the above writ petitions. The vehicles belonging to the petitioners could only be registered as private service vehicles, under the category of transport vehicles, requiring permits under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the rules framed thereunder. Further, the refusal of the third respondent to register the vehicles belonging to the petitioners as private vehicles is in accordance with the communication issued by the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Transport, Chennai, in Lr.No.29068/H3/2000, dated 20.5.2000, (Circular No.107/2000) the Government of India, Ministry of surface transport Department, in letter No.11036/R1/1997, dated 13. 2000 and the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.1248(E), dated 11. 2004, which states that all the vehicles with the seating capacity of more than six and registered in the name of the company would come under the purview of Section 2(33) and Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 12. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had placed before this Court an unreported decision, dated 1. 12. Further, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had placed before this Court an unreported decision, dated 1. 2008, made in W.P.Nos.15683 of 2000 (batch), wherein, in similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the writ petitions stating that when the vehicles are owned by a Company or a Trust and they are used by their officers in connection with the trade of business of such a trust or company, such vehicles would not come under the category of private vehicles. Instead, such vehicles would fall under the category of private service vehicles, attracting Section 2(33) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In such circumstances, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are dismissed. No costs.