Local Fund Overseer vs Pakkirisami Thevan on 23 September, 1927
5. The statement of the facts, in our view, makes this case clearly distinguishable from that, because, according to the sworn statement of the Local Fund Assistant Engineer, the passengers in this case were carried at separate fares, whereas in Local Fund Overseer, Mayavaram v. Pakkirisami Thevan (1927) I.L.R. 51 M. 527 : 55 M.L.J. 213 the whole bus had been engaged for the trip from Mayavaram. Therefore, the only thing that that Bench had to consider was the first part of Section 166(1) and not the latter part of it; and the argument on behalf of the Board in that case was that a vehicle plies for hire on a public road if it is made use of as a hired vehicle on that road, so that it is not a necessary condition that the actual hiring should take place upon that road. That argument, however, did not find favour with that Bench, and we think quite rightly. We are in entire agreement with the decision in that case. But here the facts are different. Before us on behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that the latter words of Clause (1) of the section, namely, "use of any such vehicle for carrying passengers at separate fares" on a District Board road mean plying for hire on a District Board road. If this is so, then the latter part of the clause is redundant. We cannot accept that argument. We think that that section is intended to make persons, who use the road of a District Board for making money by using motor vehicles upon it pay for that privilege. The first part is intended to make persons who ply a motor vehicle for hire within the limits of the District Board pay for it by taking out a licence, and the latter part of it is, in our view, intended to make persons who pick up passengers at separate fares outside the area of the District Board, and who carry those passengers over a road of the District Board also take out a licence.