AMBICA TUBEWELL CO JOTANA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question which arises for determination is whether a drilling rig can be said be a goods vehicle within the meaning of Sec. 2(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). The brief facts which are relevant to be noticed are as under.

(2.) The petitioner purchased a drilling rig which came to be registered with the Assistant Regional Transport Officer Mehsana as GTF 2124 on 29/01/1970 The unladen weight of the said vehicle was stated to be 12490 Kg. Pursuant to an audit objection the weight was corrected to 4500 Kg. and a notice demanding difference in tax was issued on 5/11/1975 On 2/09/1977 the petitioner applied in Form B T. I. seeking certain alterations which request was turned down on 5th September 1977 The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order Annexure A to the petition preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 5 of 1977 which was heard and decided by the Director of Transport Gujarat State Ahmedabad. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the registering authority and the Assistant Regional Transport Officer Mehsana on the appeal being dismissed by the order of 7/05/1979 the petitioner preferred this petition for quashing and setting aside the orders passed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) There is no dispute before me that the vehicle in question is a drilling rig. Certain drilling equipments such as the drilling engine drilling rod mud pump mast etc. are mounted and fitted on the chassis of the motor vehicle to facilitate its transportation from one place to another where the said equipment is required to be operated for the purpose of boring tube-wells. The authorities below have come to the conclusion that the drilling rig equipments mounted and affixed on the chassis of the motor vehicle fall within the definition of goods within the meaning of Sec. 2(7) of the Act and since the said equipment is transported by the vehicle from one place to another the vehicle answers the description of a goods vehicle as defined by Sec. 2(8) of the Act. The question then is whether this view taken by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 can be sustained having regard to the provisions of the Act.