Kailasam, J. - (1.) These three appeals are by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeals Nos. 451. 630 and 807 of 1969 respectively. The questions that arise for consideration in all the three appeals are the same and can be dealt with together. As the facts so far as they are necessary for decision in these appeals are similar, we will confine the judgment to the facts in Civil Appeal No 437 of 1970.
(2.) The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 437 of 1970 is Travancore Tea Co. Ltd, Vandiperiyar in Kerala State. The 1st respondent is the State of Kerala and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are the authorities functioning under the Kerala Motor Vechicles Taxation Act (Act 24 of 1963) which will hereafter be referred to as the Act, was brought into force on 1-7-63. The Act provides that "a tax at the rates fixed by the Government by notification in the Gazette not exceeding the maximum rates specified in the First Schedule shall be levied on all Motor Vechicles used or kept for use in the State." The appellant company owned 17 motor vehicles, tractors, trailers and lorries all of which are registered in the company's name under the Motor Vechicles Act. The Company alleged that the Vechicles were purchased by it solely and exclusively for use in the estates solely and intended to be used only for agricultural purpose and were not used nor kept for use in the State as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. The company is a tea plantation having eight estates which lie contiguous to each other and have an extent of 9422.44 acres in the aggregate. The company for the purpose of plantation are maintaining roads fit for vehicular traffic in the eight estates covering a length of 131 miles in the aggregate. On 23rd September, 1964 a Bedford Lorry owned by the company and bearing registration No. KLK-1540 was ceased by the police and taken into custody under Section 13 of the Act. According to the appellant the seizure was effected in Tengamullay Estate which is one of the eight estates owned by the company. The company wrote to the Department on 28-12-1964 stating that the vehicle was being used for agricultural purpose on private roads in the Estates and the company is not liable to pay tax and asked for the release of the vehicle, On the company paying a sum of Rupees 3,150/- as tax under protest for the period between 1-7-63 to 31-12-64, the vehicle was released. The department proceeded to prosecute the appellant in the Peermade Ist Class Magistrate's Court and the case is still pending. The appellant company filed O. P. No. 199/65 before the High Court of Kerala claiming that they were not liable to pay any tax on the motor vehicles. The High Court by its judgment dated 3rd March, 1966 directed the Regional Transport Officer, Kottayam - 2nd respondend herein, to examine the question raised in the writ petition and to pass final orders. It also directed that if the petitioner was aggrieved with the order he was at liberty to approach the High Court. In the meanwhile it directed stay of prosecution and collection of tax. The matter was taken up for consideration by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent rejected the pleas of the appellant and by his order dated 12-4-68 held that the 13 vehicles mentioned in the Original petition were liable to pay tax under the Act. The appellant filed a petition before the High Court for appropriate relief The High Court disposed of the petition O. P. No.2173/63 along with O. P. No.2081/68 filed by peermade Tea Co. who are the appellants in C. A. 438/70 in this Court by a common order dated 19th December, 1969. The learned Judge held that the language in Section 3 of that Act showed that there is departure from the legislative policy of restricting the tax liability only to vehicles using public roads. It held that the tax is imposed by Section 3 on all the motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State irrespective of any question as to whether they are used or kept for use on public roads or not. It rejected the contention on behalf of the appellant that legislature must be taken to have intended to levy such tax only on motor vehicles using or kept for use on public roads. The learned Judge also held that the Act is not beyond the competence of the legislative powers of the State as the tax is leviable by the State in respect of all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State quite irrespective on any question as to wheher or not such vehicles are used on public roads.
(3.) Aggrieved by the decision of the single Judge the appellant took the matter up on Letters Patent Appeal. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the learned single Judge was in error in holding that all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State quite irrespective of any question as to whether or not they are used on public roads, is erroneous in so far as it related to motor vehicles used or kept exclusively for use in private estate and not used or kept for use on the public roads of the State. The Letters patent Bench affirmed the decision of the single Judge and rejected the appeal. The constitutional validity of the Act was not questioned before the Bench.Holding that the legislative Entry 57 of the State list only required that the vehicles should be suitable for use on roads and the charging section only provided that the vehicle should be used or kept for use in the State the required conditions were satisfied and there would be no justification for reading into the statute words that are not there, and restricting the levy only on vehicles using public roads. While not contesting the correctness of the observation of the Bench of the Kerala High Court that the levy cannot be restricted to vehicles using the public roads, it was submitted that the words in Sec. 3cl. (1) of the Act"shall be levied on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State" should be confined to vehicles used or kept for use on the public roads of the State, and not to vehicles that are intended to be confined within the premises of the Estate. In other words the controversy between the parties before the R. T. O. the single Judge of the High Court and the Bench of the High Court can be stated by extracting the question at issue as framed by the R. T. O. "I understand that the roads used by these vehicles (even those within the estates) come under the definition of "public Roads and Public place" since at present I have not afforded opportunity to the company to refute the basis on which that fact is to be found. I make it clear that I am not relying on that matter as a basis for this order and I reserve my right to investigate that the matter if needed be later. I assume for argument sake (without conceding) that the estate roads are private roads. Even in that case, I am of the view that the company's vehicles are liable to pay tax. It is not in dispute that the vehicles are used and are kept for use within the State (The company roads are within the Kerala State.) It is also not disputed that the vehicles are registered and their registration certificates are current and they are usable motor vehicles. The tax levied under the K. M. V. T. Act is a tax on the possession of usable motor vehicle and it is realised for the purpose of State Revenue. Such being the nature of the levy according to me, I feel that irrespective of the question whether the road on which the vehicle is intended to be used is private or public, the tax is attracted.";