STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DANABHAI BHULABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Finally Mr. Trivedi submitted that the bulldozer in question is not a 'motor vehicle' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and therefore, the learned Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition under the provisions of Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, Mr. Trivedi relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa A. I. R. 1975 S.C. p. 17. The above-mentioned submission of Mr. Trivedi prima facie appears to be quite attractive before one looks at the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, reads as under:

(2.) Coming to the Supreme Court judgment relied upon by Mr. Trivedi, it is firstly required to be noticed that the question whether a bulldozer is motor vehicle within the meaning of the expression as defined in Section 2( 18) of the Motor Vehicles Act was never in focus before the Supreme Court. The matter before the Supreme Court pertained to three Civil Appeals, two of which, arose from Orissa and one from Mysore. In the appeal that arose from Mysore, the question pertained only to Dumpers. One of the two appeals which arose from Orissa was filed by Bolani Ores Ltd. Before the Trial Court in the matter of Bolani Ores Ltd, the contention was that as many as eight types of machinery enumerated in the case were not required to be registered under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and they were not liable to tax under the relevant Taxation Act. Out of the those eight types of machinery, at serial No. 3, was the caterpillar Bulldozers. At serial Nos. 1 and 2 were Shovels and Drill Master respectively. In that case, the Trial Court granted the claim of Bolani Ores Ltd. only as regards Motor Graders which were shown at item No. 6 and rejected the claim with respect to all the remaining seven items including the Bulldozer or the Caterpillar Bulldozer. When the matter went to the High Court, it appears from Para - 2 of the report that the learned Advocate General who appeared for the State made certain concessions and on the basis of those concessions the High Court accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court in respect of item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In other words, the High Court upon the concession made by the learned Advocate General held in favour of Bolani Ores Ltd. that alongwith some other item Caterpillar Bulldozers were not liable to registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and were also not liable to be taxed under the relevant Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. So far as the Caterpillar Bull dozers were concerned, the matter in that case ended there and the Supreme Court was not at all concerned with the case of Bulldozers.

(3.) The other appeal from Orissa was filed by Orissa Mineral Development Co. Ltd. That company claimed similar exemption from registration and payment of taxes in respect of nine items of machinery and at item No.6 in the list of its machinery was Caterpillar Bulldozers. In that case the Trial Court on evidence found that the machineries at items 4 to 9 (that would include Caterpillar Bulldozer) were not adapted for regular use on roads and as is clear from Para 3 of the report that fact was admitted by the opposite party. The matter so far as the Caterpillar Bulldozers were concerned came to be finally decided upon admission at the Trial Court stage. That matter was perhaps not agitated even before the High Court and surely it was not agitated before the Supreme Court.