K D MEHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions, 11 in number, common questions are involved with the only difference in the type and nature of vehicles/machines and it is to be considered as to whether such vechiles/machines are motor vehicles/vehicles under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 or they are simply machines or equipments not covered under the said Act.

(2.) Special Civil Application No.9976 of 1999 was argued as the main case and therefore, the facts in brief are taken from this petition. The case of the petitioner is that Larsen & Toubro Ltd. is a limited Company of international reputation. The construction division of this Company undertakes the execution of turn-key projects all over India and for execution of these projects, it holds various kinds of equipments. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has number of construction units located at various places and to carry out the construction projects at different places all over the country, the machineries/equipments owned by the petitioner are transferred from one construction unit to another construction unit depending upon the workload involved in the project at hand. These machines, according to the petitioner, were being transferred by the petitioner for the construction of work undertaken by the petitioner at Bharuch, Kachchh, Jamnagar and Mehsana and the same were detained by the office of the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) at Check Post, Songadh, Dist. Surat on the ground that these machines were in fact vehicles for which the registration was necessary and the taxes were required to be paid by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, it was pleaded before the RTO that these machines were not the vehicles as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act and they were simply machines or equipments in aid of the construction work, but the RTO did not agree and detained all these machines. It is the case of the petitioner that these machines are not driven on the road but are being transferred from Coimbatore to the places as aforesaid on a trailer/truck. It has been submitted that these machines/vehicles are required to be released by the RTO and that the detention of the same is illegal. 8th Sept.2000:

(3.) The machines/vehicles in question in different petitions are as under: @@@ SCA No. Type or Nature of the machine/ vehicle 9976/99 Motor Grader - 2 9826/99 Wheel Loader - 1 10417/99 Vibratory Roller - 1 419/2000 Paver - 1 2034/2000 Motor Graders - 3 Wheel Loader - 1 Vibratory - 1 Vibratory Roller - 1 Excavator-cum-Loader - 1 619/2000 Motor Grader - 1 342/2000 Crane - 1 801/2000 Crane - 1 524/2000 Motor Graders - 2 Vibratory Rollers - 2 7491/99 Motor Grader - 1 7536/99 Crane - 1. On the basis of the contentions as have been raised before this Court with regard to the different machines/vehicles as above, it has to be examined as to whether the Motor Grader, Vibratory Roller, Wheel Loader, Paver, Excavator-cum-loader, Crane etc. have to be treated as motor vehicle or vehicles in the context of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, and the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 or not.