SOBHAGMAL KATARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in all the above 4 writ petitions is similar, therefore, all the writ petitions are being decided by this common order and for the sake of convenience I deem it appropriate to deal with the facts as stated in Civil Writ Petition No. 387 / 84 which shall be treated as the main petition since the facts as well as the question of law involved therein are identical.

(2.) The main question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether a goods vehicle which is registered as a tractor trailor i.e. an articulated vehicle as defined in Section 2(1A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Clause 2 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') repealing the old Act of 1939 wherein the articulated vehicle is defined under the Amended Act of 1988 as "articulated vehicle means a tractor to which a trailor is attached in such a manner that is superimposed on and a part of the weight of the trailor is born by the tractor". Clause (2) of Section 2 of the Act defines an articulated vehicle as a vehicle to which a semi-trailor is attached.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent authority registered the aforesaid vehicle as one vehicle which is an articulated vehicle as aforesaid and, therefore, the registering authority was not competent to charge the tax on the vehicle twice over as it was registered as one vehicle only with permission to use trolly as an alternate vehicle only in the event of emergency. This fact is also borne out from the registration certificate issued by the registration certificate issued bit the registering authority which is annexed with the writ petition and in that certificate at the bottom there is a note appended to it which specifically indicates that "either a trailor (a) or (b) shall be used at a time and not both at a time". This position makes it very clear that the very object of the registering authority in issuing the said certificate in favour of the petitioner was to charge the tax only in respect of one vehicle and not for two vehicles as so contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.