http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: JAGIR SINGH & ORS. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT26/11/1975

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  997            1976 SCR  (2) 809  1976 SCC  (2) 942  CITATOR INFO :  D          1976 SC1074  (27)  F          1992 SC 117  (3)

ACT:      Bihar Taxation  on Passengers  and  Goods  (Carried  by Public Service  Motor Vehicles)  Act, 1961-Sec. 3-’Owner’-If includes any  person for  the time  being in  charge of  the Vehicle-Liability to pay tax-On whom rests.

HEADNOTE:      Section 2(d)  of the  Bihar Taxation  on Passengers and Goods (carried  by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961, defines "owner"  as the  owner of  a  public  service  motor vehicle and  includes the holder of a permit under the Motor Vehicles-Act, 1939,  in respect  of a  public service  motor vehicle or  any person  for the time being in charge of such vehicle or  responsible for  the management  of the place of business of  such owner.  Section 3(2)  of the  Act provides that every  owner shall  pay to  the  State  Government  the amount of  tax due  under s.  3. Sub-Section 3 provides that every passenger  carried by  a public  service motor vehicle and every  person whose  goods are  carried by  such vehicle shall be  liable to  pay to  the owner  the  amount  of  tax payable under  s. 3  and every  owner would recover such tax from such owner or person as the case may be.      There are  identical provisions  in the different State Acts. The  term "operator" used in some Acts, instead of the word "owner",  means any person whose name is entered in the permit  as  the  permit-holder  or  any  person  having  the possession or control of such vehicle.      In a  petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution it was contended that  the words  "or any person for the time being in charge of such vehicle" in the definition of "owner" mean that if  there are  two types  of owners  for  a  particular vehicle, it  will be  the owner  who  transports  the  goods carried by the vehicle who is responsible to pay the tax.      Dismissing the petition, ^      HELD : The liability to pay tax is of the permit-holder in all  cases. The  permit-holder is  the owner  within  the definition of  the word "owner" in the Bihar and other State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Acts and  is also  the "operator"  within the meaning of the word "operator" in other Acts. [817G-H]      (1) The  definition of  the term  "owner" is exhaustive and intended  to extend the meaning of the term by including within its  sweep bailee  of a public carrier vehicle or any manager acting  on behalf of the owner. The intention of the Legislature to  extend  the  meaning  of  the  term  by  the definition given  by  it  will  be  frustrated  if  what  is intended to  be inclusive  is  interpreted  to  exclude  the actual owner. [815H]      (2) The  words "or  any person  for the  time being  in charge of  such vehicle or responsible for the management of the place  of business  of such  owner"  indicate  that  the permit-holder will  include any  person who  is in charge of such vehicle  or any  person  who  is  responsible  for  the management of the place of business of such owner. The owner cannot escape  the liability  by stating  that any person is for the  time being in charge of such vehicle and, therefore such person is the owner and not the permit-holder. [815E]      (3)(a) Once it is found that the Legislature levies tax on passengers  and goods  carried by  public  service  motor vehicles, it  becomes the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle not  to permit  the vehicle to be used until the tax is paid. [816D]      (b) The operational arrangement has no relevance to the liability to  taxation. The person who allows his vehicle to be used  for the  purpose of carrying goods or passengers is the permit-holder  and, therefore,  the liability to pay tax attaches to  the permit-holder  as the owner of the vehicle. The fact that 810 these licensed  agents have  to furnish  the operators  with correct figures of freight-receivable by them shows not only that they  are accountable  to the  owners or  operators but also that  licensed agents  are not the owners or operators. [816C; 817E]      (c) Section  59 and 61 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, indicate that a permit cannot be transferred. [817G]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ  Petitions Nos. 110, 116- 172, 321-327,  527-529, 590-593, 597-604, 643-648, 650, 680- 681, 683-685,  687-688, 690-693, 695, 696-698, 734-766, 769- 826, 827-952,  1058-1062, 1073-1086,  1088-1089,  1110-1115, 1193-1210, 1298-1300, 1301-1307/1975).      (Petitions Under  Article 32  of  the  Constitution  of India).                             AND      WRIT PETITIONS NOS. 576-577, 578-584 AND 607/1975.      For the Petitioners:      In WPs.  Nos. 110,  116-172, 643,  & 607/75: M/s. K. B. Rohatgi, D. N. Gupta and V. K. Jain, Advocates.      In WPs.  Nos. 688,  852-863, 664-952,  1058-1062, 1073- 1086, 1298-1300,  1304-1307/75: M/s.  M. S.  Ratta and S. K. Sabharwal, Advocates.      In WP.  Nos. 321-327,  527-529, 590-593, 650, 691, 697, 698, 1088-1089,  1110-1115  &  1193-1210/75:  S.  T.  Desai, Senior Advocate  (In WP. No. 321-327 only) (M/s. B. R. Kapur (In WPs.  Nos. 527-529 & 321-327) and T.S. Arora, Advocates, with him).      In WP.  Nos. 597-604,  644-647, 683-685, 687, 692, 576, 578-579, 580-584/75:  M/s. M.  S. Ratta and S. K. Sabharwal, Advocates.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

    In WP.  Nos. 680-681,  689, 695-696/75:  S.  C.  Patel, Advocate      In WP. Nos. 690-693/75: C. K. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate For the Respondents:      In WPs.  Nos.  110,  116-172,  590-593,  650,  697  and Respondent Nos. 1 & 3.      In WPs. Nos. 647 & 693, Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.      In WPs.  Nos. 597, 576, and Respondent No. 1 In WP. No. 577 &  1193-1210/75  :  Balabhadra  Prasad  Singh,  Advocate General for the State of Bihar.      (In WP.  Nos.  110,  116-172,  321-327)  U.  P.  Singh, Advocate in all other matters.      For Respondent  No. 1,  7 &  13, (In  WP. No.  601/75), Respondent No. 1, 3, 4 (In WP. No. 680 & 688, Respondent No. 1 &  5 In  WP. 691,  Respondent No. 1 & 9 In WP. No. 578-79, Respondent No. 4 & 5 in WP. No. 600, 1073-86. Respondent No. 6 in  WP. No. 690 and Respondent No. 7 in WP. No. 599/75: M. C. Bhandare 811 Senior Advocate,  (In WP.  Nos. 601, and 602/75 only), N. N. Goswami (In  WP 769-806/75) and R. N. Sachthey (In all other petitions), Advocates, with him).      For Respondent  No. 1  & 7 In WP 603, Respondent No. 1, 5-7 In WP. No. 645, 695, Respondent No. 1 and 5-7 In WP. No. 1073-1086, Respondent  No. 1  & 7  In WP.  No. 584  and  For Respondents In WP. 1208-1300: G. N. Dikshit, Senior Advocate (In WP. No. 603 only), O. P. Rana, Advocate, with him in all the petitions).      For Respondent  No. 1  In WP. No. 598, 646, 692 and for Respondents. In  581-82/75: L.  M. Singhvi, Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan and S. M. Jain, Advocate.      Respdt. No.  1, 3,  4, 6,  8 In WP. No. 604, Respdts In WP. No. 643, 698, 1110-1115, and Respdt. No. 1, 7 & 8 In WP. 683-84, Respdt.  No. 1,  6, 8 In WP. No. 696, Respondents in WP. No. 607 and 1088-89/75: I. N. Shroff, Advocate.      For Respondent  No. 1  & FP. 602, Respdt. 8 In WP 598 & 646, Respdt. 1 In WP. No. 599 and 687, Respdt. Nos. 1 & 5 In WP. No.  685 and Respondents 1, 5/3 In WP. No. 689/75: V. S. Desai Senior  Advocate (In  WP. Nos.  646 &  689/75), M.  N. Shroff, Advocate, with him).      For Respdt.  Nos. 1,  5, 6,  10 In WP. No. 600, Respdt. Nos. 2  & 5  In WP.  691 and  Respondent Nos.  1 In  WP. No. 689/75: O. P. Sharma Advocate.      For Respondent  No. 1 (In WP. Nos. 734-736/75: B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      RAY, C.J.  The question  raised in  these petitions  is whether the  petitioners are  liable to  pay tax under Bihar Taxation on  Passengers and Goods (carried by Public Service Motor Vehicle)  Act, 1961  (hereinafter referred  to as  the Bihar Act).      The other  petitioners raised  similar  question  under Maharashtra Tax  on  Goods  (Carried  by  Road)  Act,  1962; Rajasthan Passengers  and Goods  Taxation Act,  1959; Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Goods) Act, 1962; Punjab Passengers and  Goods Act,  1952; the  Gujarat  Carriage  of Goods  Taxation   Act,  1962;   the  Mysore  Motor  Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods Act, 1961.      Reference may  be made  to the  Bihar Act as typical of all the cases covered by these petitions. The pattern of all the Acts is similar.      At the outset it may be stated that the validity of the Bihar Act  was some  years back  challenged with  regard  to retrospective operation  of the  Act. This  Court  in  Civil Appeals No. 16 and 17 of 1963

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

812 -Rai Ram  Krishna &  Ors. v.  State of  Bihar decided  on 11 March, 1963 and reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1667 upheld the retrospective operation of the Bihar Act.      Section 3  of the  Bihar Act  is the  charging section. That section  provides that  on and  from the  date on which this Act  is deemed  to have  come into force there shall be levied and  paid to the State Government a tax on passengers and goods carried by a public service motor vehicle.      The other  two relevant provisions in the Bihar Act are sub-sections (2)  and (3)  of the  charging section 3 of the Act. The  said sub-section  (2) provides  that  every  owner shall, in  the manner  prescribed in  section 9,  pay to the State Government,  the amount  of tax  due under  section 3. Sub-section (3)  provides that  every passenger carried by a public service  motor vehicle  and every  person whose goods are carried  by such  vehicle shall  be liable to pay to the owner the  amount of  tax payable  under section 3 and every owner shall  recover such  tax from  such owner or person as the case may be.      When the  Act came  into force  such tax was levied and paid at  the rate of twelve and a half per cent of the fares and freights  payable to the owner of such vehicle. The rate of tax  was raised  to twenty  per cent under a notification dated 25 May, 1973.      There is  also a provision in the Bihar Act for lumpsum payment in lieu of the tax at Rs. 320 per month per vehicle. Formerly, the  lumpsum was  Rs. 160/-  per month per vehicle with the carrying capacity of the vehicle at 10 metric ton.      Section 9  of the  Bihar  Act  speaks  of  payment  and recovery of tax. That section provides that before any owner furnishes any  return  under  this  Act  he  shall,  in  the prescribed manner, pay into the Government Treasury the full amount of  tax due from him under this Act according to such return and  shall furnish  along with  the return  a receipt from such  treasury showing  payment  of  the  said  amount. Further if any owner fails, without any reasonable cause, to make payment of the tax due from him according to the return furnished under  section 6,  the  prescribed  authority  may direct that  the owner  shall, in  addition to the amount of tax payable  by him,  pay by  way  of  penalty,  a  sum  not exceeding five  rupees for every day after the expiry of the period prescribed  under the said section. The amount of tax and penalty,  if any  which remains  unpaid after  the  date specified in  the notice  issued shall  be recovered  as  an arrear of land revenue.      The provisions  in  the  different  Acts  in  different States are identical to the provisions in the Bihar Act. The only material  difference in  the Maharashtra,  Gujarat  and Mysore Acts  is that  instead of  the word "owner" of public vehicle the word used is the "operator" of public vehicle. 813      The expression  "owner" is  defined in the Bihar Act in section 2(d) thereof as follows:-           " "Owner"  means the  owner of  a  public  service      motor vehicle  in respect  of which  a permit  has been      granted by  a Regional  or  State  Transport  Authority      under the  provisions of  the Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939      and includes  the holder of a permit under the said Act      in respect  of a  public service  motor vehicle  or any      person for  the time being in charge of such vehicle or      responsible for the management of the place of business      of such owner".      In the  Maharashtra Act  "operator"  means  any  person whose name  is entered in the permit as the permit holder or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

any person having the possession or control of such vehicle.      In all  these petitions the petitioners are all holders of permit  in respect  of public service motor vehicles. The main contention  of the petitioners is that the vehicles are hired by booking or forwarding agencies who have direct link with persons  whose goods are carried on the hired transport vehicles and  they collect  the fare  and freight as well as the tax,  and, therefore,  they should be liable for the tax and not the petitioners.      The petitioners  contend that the definition of "owner" speaks of  the following two types of owners. The first type is the owner of a public service vehicle in respect of which a permit has been granted to such owner. The second category of owner  is the  person who  is in charge of such a vehicle for the  time being and where a vehicle is in charge of such a person  he is  alone to  be regarded  as an  owner of  the vehicle. The  petitioners contend  that the  words  "or  any person for  the time being in charge of such vehicle" in the definition of  "owner" would  indicate that the transport or booking agencies  which would  take the public service motor vehicle on hire would be owners within the definition of the word without being permit holders in respect of these public service motor vehicles.      The petitioners  rely on  the words  "or any person for the time  being in charge of such vehicle" to show that when the vehicle  is in  charge of a person who is not the holder of the  permit he  is regarded  as an  owner of  the vehicle because he  carries the  goods and  unless he is regarded as the owner, the consignor of the goods would not be liable to pay the  tax to  the person  for the time being in charge as the  owner   within  the  meaning  of  the  definition.  The petitioners amplify the contention to mean that if there are two types  of owners for a particular vehicle it will be the owner who  transports the  goods and  collects the  tax, who alone is  responsible to  pay to  the Government  the tax on goods carried by the vehicle.      The petitioners  also rely on the definition of "agent" in  the  Bihar  Public  Carrier  (Licensing  of  Collecting, Forwarding and  Distributing Agents) Rules, 1971 hereinafter referred to  as the  Bihar Public  Carrier Rules.  In  these Rules "agent" is defined to mean any person who 814 engages directly  or  indirectly  in  the  business  of  (a) collecting (b)  collecting and forwarding (c) forwarding and distributing and (d) collecting, forwarding and distributing goods carried  by any  public carriers. The petitioners rely on the  aforesaid definition  of "agent"  and the  following Rules in  support of the contention that transport companies or  booking  agencies  can  be  engaged  in  forwarding  and distributing goods  without holding  permits in  their names and thus  become owners in charge of the vehicles within the definition of  "owners". The  petitioners rely  on Rule 8 of the Bihar  Public Carrier  Rules to show some conditions for licences. Rule 8(g) mentions that the licensee shall furnish the operators with correct figures of the freight receivable by them  from the  consignors or  the consignees.  Rule 8(e) states that  the licensee  shall maintain a proper record of the vehicles  under  his  control  and  of  the  collection, despatch and  delivery of  goods  which  shall  be  open  to inspection by the State Transport Authority. Rule 8(i) shows that the licensee shall ensure that the goods vehicles under his control  have valid  permits for  routes  on  which  the vehicles have to ply.      The petitioners  further contend  that in  any event no machinery is  provided in  the Act or in the Rules as to how

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

the petitioners  can collect  tax from  the consignor of the goods or  force the consignors to pay the tax to them before their  goods  are  carried.  The  petitioners  rely  on  the provisions in  section 3(3) of the Bihar Act that the person whose goods  are carried shall be liable to pay to the owner and every  owner shall recover such tax from such passengers or persons  as the  case may be in support of the contention that the  owner is  merely a depositor of the tax if the tax is paid  to the  owner.  The  petitioners  rely  on  section 10(1)(a) of  the Bihar  Act which  provides that  any person from whom  any money  is due  or may become due to an owner, who has failed to comply with a notice served upon him under section 9,  or any person who holds or may subsequently hold any money  for or  on account of such owner, may be directed to pay into the Government Treasury the tax and contend that the petitioners  who lend their trucks to transport agencies are not liable to pay the tax and the transport agencies can be directed to pay the tax.      The Bihar  Act and  the  other  Acts  in  the  charging section enact  that there  shall be  levied and  paid to the State Government  a tax  on all passengers and goods carried by public  service  motor  vehicles.  The  charging  section further requires  every owner  to pay  the amount  of tax as mentioned in  section 9  of the  Bihar Act. Section 9 of the Bihar Act  states that  the amount of tax or penalty payable by an  owner shall be paid in the manner provided. The other provisions in the Bihar Act are these. Section 6 states that every owner  shall furnish  to the prescribed authority such returns as  may be  prescribed. Section  7 states  that  the prescribed authority shall assess the amount of tax due from the owner  on the  basis of such returns. Section 8 provides that the prescribed authority may permit an owner to pay, in lieu of  the tax payable by him, such amount as may be fixed by the  Commissioner in  the prescribed  manner.  Section  9 enacts that the amount of tax or penalty, if any, payable by an owner  under  this  Act  shall  be  paid  in  the  manner hereinafter provided.  Section 10  speaks of special mode of recovery and  states that notwithstanding anything contained in section 9 815 or any  law, the  prescribed authority  may at  any time  by notice in  writing direct  any person from whom any money is due or  may become  due to an owner who has failed to comply with a  notice served  upon him  under  section  9,  or  any person, who  holds or may subsequently hold any money for or on account  of such  owner  is  directed  to  pay  into  the Government Treasury  in the  manner specified in a notice so much of  the money  as is  sufficient to  pay the amount due from the  owner. Section  11 mentions  that where  an owner, liable to  pay  tax,  transfers  his  public  service  motor vehicle to another person, the transferor and the transferee shall jointly  and severally  be liable to pay the amount of tax and  penalty. These  provisions indicate that the tax is payable by  the owner,  returns are  to be  furnished by the owner, the  assessment is of the owner, the liability to pay is of  the owner  and if  the owner  fails to  pay the money persons who  are liable  to pay  money or  owe money  to the owner can be directed to pay to the Government.      The definition  of "owner"  repels  the  interpretation submitted by  the petitioners  that the definition means not only the  owner who  is the permit holder but also a booking agency who  may be  in charge of the vehicle without being a permit holder.  The entire accent in the definition of owner is on  the holder  of a  permit in  respect  of  the  public service motor  vehicle. It  is the permit which entitles the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

holder to  ply the  vehicle. It  is because  the vehicle  is being plied  that the  passengers and  consignors  of  goods carried by  that vehicle  become liable to pay not only fare and freight  to the owner but also tax thereon to the owner. The words  "or any  person for  the time  being in charge of such vehicle  or responsible for the management of the place of business  of such  owner" indicate that the permit holder will include  any person who is in charge of such vehicle of the permit  holder or  any person who is responsible for the management of the place of business of such owner. The owner cannot escape  the liability  by stating  that any person is for  the  time  being  in  charge  of  such  vehicles,  and, therefore, such  person is  the owner  and  not  the  permit holder.      The general rule of construction is not only to look at the word but to look at the context, the collocation and the object of  such words  relating to such matter and interpret the meaning according to what would appear to be the meaning intended to  be conveyed  by the  use of the words under the circumstances.   Sometimes    definition   clauses    create qualification  by   expressions  like  "unless  the  context otherwise  requires";  or  "unless  the  contrary  intention appears"; or  "if  not  inconsistent  with  the  context  or subject  matter".  "Parliament  would  legislate  to  little purpose",  said   Lord  Macnaghten   in  Netherseal  Co.  v. Bourne(1) "if  the objects  of its  care might supplement or undo the  work of  legislation by making a definition clause of their  own. People cannot escape from the obligation of a statute  by   putting  a   private  interpretation   on  its language". The courts will always examine the real nature of the transaction by which it is sought to evade the tax.      The definition  of the  term "owner"  is exhaustive and intended to  extend the  meaning of  the term  by  including within its sweep bailee of 816 a public  carrier vehicle or any manager acting on behalf of the owner.  The intention  of the  legislature to extend the meaning of  the term  by the  definition given by it will be frustrated  if   what  is   intended  to   be  inclusive  is interpreted to exclude the actual owner.      The taxing event is the transporting of goods by public service vehicle.  The consignor is to pay the tax. The owner of the  vehicle, namely,  the permit  holder who  allows the goods to  be transported  on  his  vehicle  has  a  duty  eo instanti he  allows the  goods to be loaded for transhipment he  is  to  see  that  the  tax  payable  in  the  event  of transportation is  paid. Similarly, the tax is on passengers carried by  public service  vehicles and  the owner  becomes liable to  pay tax on the fares payable by passengers to the owners.      The operational  arrangement to  which the  petitioners refer that  they have  let out  the vehicle  on hire  has no relevance to  the  liability  to  taxation.  The  goods  are transported by  a vehicle. The passengers are carried by the vehicles. The  person who  allows his vehicle to be used for the purpose  is  the  permit  holder,  and,  therefore,  the liability to  pay tax  attaches to  the permit holder as the owner of the vehicle.      The plea  that no  machinery has been provided enabling the owner  to collect  or recover  the tax from the owner of the goods  is  unacceptable.  Once  it  is  found  that  the legislature levies  tax on  passengers and  goods carried by public service  motor vehicle  it becomes  responsibility of the owner  of the  vehicle not  to permit  the vehicle to be used until  the tax  is paid.  If the permit holder lets out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the vehicle to any person on hire it is a matter of internal arrangement between  the owner  who is the permit holder and the person  who is  allowed by the permit holder to hire the vehicle to  collect tax  in order  to enable  the  owner  to discharge the liability. If the owner does not make adequate provision in  that behalf  the owner cannot escape liability by pleading  that the  hirer of the vehicle is liable to pay tax and the owner is not liable. The intention of these Acts is made  clear if  reference is  made to other similar Acts. The Mysore Act speaks of "operator" meaning any person whose name is  entered in  the permit  as the  holder thereof. The Mysore Act speaks of tax being levied and collected on goods carried by  stage carriages and further provides that if the operator collects  from the  passengers fares  and  freights inclusive of  the tax  the operator  shall pay  to the State Government on  account of  the tax one eleventh of the total amount of  fares and freights, inclusive of tax collected by him from the passengers.      The definition of "agent" in Rule 2 of the Bihar Public Carrier Rules, 1971 is not applicable to the Bihar Act under which tax  is levied  on passengers  and  goods.  The  Bihar Public Carrier  Rules  are  framed  in  exercise  of  powers conferred by clause (ww) of sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Motor  Vehicles Act,  1939.  Section  68  of  the  Motor Vehicles Act,  1939 confers power on the State Government to make Rules  inter alia, for (ww) licensing of agents engaged in the business of collecting or forwarding and distributing of goods  carried by public carriers. These agents under the Bihar Public  Carrier. Rules, 1971 are licensed agents to be engaged  as  forwarding  agents,  collecting  agents.  These agents have no liability to pay tax levied under sec- 817 tion 3  of the  Bihar Act on passengers and goods carried by public service  vehicles. These  agents collect  the  goods, forward the  goods, distribute  the goods.  Whatever freight they collect  for goods they have to collect the tax also on such  freight.  They  furnish  the  operators  with  correct figures of  the freight receivable by them. These agents can charge only  such commission  as will  be prescribed  by the State Government  under the Rules. These agents are separate from owner  of the vehicle as will appear from Rule 9 of the Bihar Public Carrier Rules which speaks of particulars to be mentioned  in   contract  of  agency.  One  of  the  matters mentioned  there   is  the   name  of   the  owner,  driver, registration number  of vehicle  and its authorised load and the rate  and amount  of the  commission. These  agents  are confined to  the special  work  of  collecting,  forwarding, distributing of goods carried by public service vehicles.      The Bihar  Act prescribes  Rules made  under the  Bihar Act. The  Bihar Act  and Rules  thereunder define ’agent’ to mean a  person authorised  in writing  by owner to appear on his behalf before a prescribed authority. An agent under the Bihar Act  is only  one authorised  by the  owner to  appear before  a   prescribed  authority   for  different  purposes mentioned in  the Rules.  The Bihar Act and the Rules do not recognise any  agency in  the matter  of tax  on  fares  and freights payable to the owner of the public service vehicle. The agents under public Carrier Rules are licensed to do the special task  of  collecting,  forwarding  and  distributing goods carried  by public carriers. They charge fees for such service and  they have  special responsibility and liability under terms of agency. These agents are not owners of public service vehicles.  The fact  that these licensed agents have to furnish  the operators  with correct  figures of  freight receivable by  them shows not only that they are accountable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

to the owners or operators but also that licensed agents are not the owners or operators.      The Motor  Vehicles Act, 1939 in sections 54, 55 and 56 deal  with   applications  for   public  carrier’s   permit, procedure in  considering application  for  public  carriers permit and  grant of  public carrier’s permit. Section 59 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 states that save as provided in section 61,  a permit  shall not  be transferable  from  one person  to   another  except  with  the  permission  of  the transport authority  which granted  the permit and shall not without such  permission operate  to confer on any person to whom a  vehicle covered  by the  permit is  transferred  any right to  use that  vehicle in  the manner authorised by the permit. Section 61 speaks of transfer of permit on the death of the  holder. Therefore,  these provisions  in  the  Motor Vehicles  Act,   1939  indicate  that  a  permit  cannot  be transferred.      The permit holder is the owner within the definition of the "owner"  in the Bihar Act and other Acts and is also the "operator" within  the meaning  of the  word  "operator"  in other Acts  to which  reference has been made. The liability to pay tax is of the permit holder in all cases.      For these  reasons, the  contentions of the petitioners fail. The petitions are dismissed. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. P.B.R.                                  Petitions dismissed. 818