Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Manikgarh Cement, a division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited, challenged a notice dated 18.10.2003 and order dated 24.11.2003 issued by the Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Chandrapur, calling upon it to register a BH35 Rear Dumper Truck and a Hindusthan 2021 Loader as Construction Equipment vehicles under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The petitioner contended that these vehicles were designed exclusively for off-highway operations within mines and had no on-highway capacity. The petitioner had replied to the notice on 18.11.2003, asserting that the judgment in Western Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 883) was inapplicable as that case involved on-highway use. The petitioner also sought a personal hearing and relied on the Supreme Court's larger bench decision in Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. State of Orissa (03.04.2002). The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the respondents did not dispute the factual assertion that the vehicles were not adapted for use on roads. The court held that since the vehicles were designed only for off-highway use in mines, they did not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus were not liable for registration under Section 39. The impugned notice and order were quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Definition of Motor Vehicle - Construction Equipment Vehicle - Section 2(28) read with Rule 2(ca) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 - Vehicles designed solely for off-highway use in mines and not adapted for use on roads do not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' and are not liable for registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Held that the impugned notice and order calling for registration were unsustainable as the vehicles in question had no on-highway capacity (Paras 2, 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether vehicles designed exclusively for off-highway use in mines, without on-highway capacity, fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and require registration under Section 39 of the Act.
Final Decision
The impugned notice dated 18.10.2003 and order dated 24.11.2003 are quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Construction Equipment Vehicle
- Off-highway vehicle
- Registration
- Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988
- Central Motor Vehicle Rules
- 1989
- Rule 2(ca)
- Section 2(28)
- Section 39
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (04) 118
Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2003
B.P. Dharmadhikari, P.N. Deshmukh
Shri A.A. Naik for petitioner, Shri A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondents
Manikgarh Cement, a division of Century Textiles and Industries Limited
The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Department of Transport, and The Deputy Regional Transport Officer, Chandrapur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging notice and order requiring registration of vehicles as Construction Equipment vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of notice dated 18.10.2003 and order dated 24.11.2003, and declaration that the vehicles are not liable for registration.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's vehicles (BH35 Rear Dumper Truck and Hindusthan 2021 Loader) were designed exclusively for off-highway use in mines and had no on-highway capacity, yet the respondents insisted on registration under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Previous Decisions
The court had issued notice on 04.12.2003 and granted interim relief on 24.06.2004 staying the operation of the impugned notice and order.
Issues
Whether vehicles designed exclusively for off-highway use in mines fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Whether such vehicles are liable for registration under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the vehicles are not adapted for use on roads and are designed only for off-highway operations in mines, relying on Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. State of Orissa.
Respondents did not dispute the factual assertion that the vehicles have no on-highway capacity.
Ratio Decidendi
Vehicles designed exclusively for off-highway use, not adapted for use on roads, do not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicle' under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and are not liable for registration under Section 39 of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the specific contention of the petitioner that these vehicles do not have any 'on highway' capacity and are designed only for 'off highway' operations.
In the present matter, the respondents have not disputed the factual assertion that the vehicles in question are not adopted for use upon road and are designed only for use in mines.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4753 of 2003 challenging notice dated 18.10.2003 and order dated 24.11.2003. The court issued notice on 04.12.2003 and granted interim relief on 24.06.2004 staying the operation of the impugned notice and order. The petition was finally heard and disposed of on 13.04.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 2(28), Section 39
- Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989: Rule 2(ca)
