Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 543 (MP)

Santlal Khera v. Union of India

2003-04-16

A.K.MISHRA

body2003
ORDER 1. The only question involved in these writ petitions is whether the goods vehicles/Trucks in question are to be treated as multi-axle vehicles or the vehicles having two axle and corresponding life of such vehicles for the purpose of plying under permit. 2. Facts are taken from W.P. No. 1937/2002. The petitioner plies goods vehicle No. MP-19-3111 covered under the national permit No. 494/89. Petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to ply the goods vehicle in question till completion of 15 years of age as provided in rule 88(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules as the vehicle is having more than two axles and is a multi-axle vehicle. Registration certificate P-1 of the Truck indicates that the vehicle is registered within the category of heavy goods vehicle. Permit P-2 of vehicle is valid upto 30.6.2004. While granting renewal of the above permit, a condition was imposed that on completion of 12 years' period in respect of above vehicle, petitioner is required to replace the vehicle. This condition was imposed as per section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The period of 12 years has expired on 17.1.2001. 3. It is averred by the petitioner that under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 88 of the Rules, a national permit shall be deemed to be "invalid" from the date on which a goods carriage covered by the permit complete "fifteen years in case of a multi-axle goods carriage" and "twelve years where the vehicle is other than a multi-axle goods carriage", unless such goods carriage is replaced. Petitioner submits that the heavy goods vehicles of the petitioner is multi-axle goods carriage inasmuch as it has two front-axle and two rear-axle and therefore, it qualifies for the age of 15 years as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. Petitioner is thus entitled to ply the vehicle till 30.6.2004 or till it completes 15 years age from the date of its registration. The petitioner's vehicle in question completes 15 years of age from the date of registration on 17.4.2005. 4. The question whether vehicle is having two axles or multi-axles was directed to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority as per Order P-3 passed by this Court in previous writ petition. The petitioner's vehicle in question completes 15 years of age from the date of registration on 17.4.2005. 4. The question whether vehicle is having two axles or multi-axles was directed to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority as per Order P-3 passed by this Court in previous writ petition. Certificate of mechanic was submitted before the concerned Regional Transport Authority that the vehicle of the petitioner consists of 4 axles and all the axles are functioning independently. The contention of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Regional Transport Officer and an order P-6 has been passed rejecting the submissions holding the life of the vehicle not to be 15 years but 12 years only. It has been found that the vehicle is having two axles only and cannot be termed as multi-axle vehicle. 5. It is averred by the petitioner that the order P-6 passed by the RTO is without jurisdiction. Certificate of registration has been wrongly relied upon. The reliance placed by RTO on notification dated 9.6.1989 is not available. It does not advance the cause so as to qualify the vehicle as multi-axle vehicle or having two axles. 6. A return has been filed by the State Government and RTO, respondents No.2 and 3. It is contended in the return that the vehicle is having only two axles and age of 12 years has been completed, as such rules are applicable and condition of registration comes into play. The order P-6 passed by the RTO is proper. Front axle of the petitioner's heavy goods vehicle is having two tyres of the tyre size of 1000 x 20 and rear axle is having four tyres of 1000 x 20 of tyre size, which has been verified by the registering authority on 17.4.1997. The sale certificate R-1 issued by Commercial Automobiles, Jabalpur unequivocally declares that the 'front axle' is containing two tyres of 1000 x 20 tyre size and 'rear axle' is containing four tyres of 1000 x 20 tyre size. 7. It is further contended in the return of respondents No. 2/3 that the notification R-2 issued by the Govt. of India on 18.10.1996 has also been taken into consideration whereby the axle weight of the vehicle• has been specified. 7. It is further contended in the return of respondents No. 2/3 that the notification R-2 issued by the Govt. of India on 18.10.1996 has also been taken into consideration whereby the axle weight of the vehicle• has been specified. According to the said notification vide Entry No.3, the maximum gross vehicle weight and maximum safe axle weight of two axle vehicle, which contains two tyres on front axle and four tyres on rear axle have been specified to be of 16.2 tonnes i.e. to say six tonnes at 'front axle' and 10.2 tonnes on 'rear axle'. The petitioner's vehicle is having two tyres on front axle and four tyres on rear axle, which are of 1000 x 20 tyre size. Thus, the vehicle cannot be allowed to ply beyond 12 years. As a matter of fact in the order P-6 passed by the RTO, there is wrong mention of the date of notification as 9.6.1989 instead of notification dated 18.1.1996. Same be read as reference to notification dated 18.10.1996. Government of India has issued notification dated 9.6.1989 which deals with the safe axle weight, while the subsequent notification of the Government of India dated 18.10.1996 providing with safe axle weight has also provided maximum gross vehicle weight, permissible for axle of a goods vehicle to be plied under any permit including national permit. Thus, the order P-6 is proper. Petitioner was aware of the condition of having to replace the vehicle on completing 12 years since 24.2.1989 and has filed the petition after 12 years, though the petitioner has replaced other similar vehicle on completion of 12 years. The order P-6 is proper and calls for no interference. 8. Similar question is raised in other two writ petitions W.P. No. 657/2003 and 780/2003, vehicles numbers are different. 9. Shri B.K. Rawat, learned counsel for petitioner, has strenuously submitted that the authority has clearly erred in law in holding the vehicle is not multi-axle vehicle. He has submitted that since there are more than one axle, vehicle has to be treated as multi-axle vehicle. He has placed reliance on Sub-rule (3) of Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to contend that life of multi-axle vehicle is 15 years, thus, action of the respondents in not treating the vehicle as multi-axle vehicle is bad in law, thus order P-6 is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He has placed reliance on Sub-rule (3) of Rule 88 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules to contend that life of multi-axle vehicle is 15 years, thus, action of the respondents in not treating the vehicle as multi-axle vehicle is bad in law, thus order P-6 is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 10. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that the order P-16 is proper and. the vehicle in question cannot be treated as multi-axle vehicle having the life of 15 years. Reasoning employed in the order is proper. 11. In order to appreciate rival submissions, it is necessary to consider Rule 88. Rule 88 is quoted below : 88. Age of Motor Vehicle for the purpose - (1) No National permit shall be granted in respect of goods carriage, other than multi-axle vehicle which is more than twelve years old at any point of time. (2) No National permit shall be granted for a multi-axle goods carriage which is more than fifteen years old at any point of time. (3) A National permit shall be deemed to be invalid from the date on which a goods carriage covered by the permit complete fifteen years in case of a multi-axle goods carriage and (twelve years) where the vehicle is other than a multi-axle goods carriage, unless such goods carriage is replaced. Explanation: For the purpose of this rule, the period of (twelve years) or fifteen years, as the case may be, shall be computed from the date of initial registration of the motor vehicle covered under its permit or the prime mover in case of an articulated vehicle. (4) No National permit shall be granted in respect of a multi-axle trailer approved to carry a gross vehicle weight of more than 50 tonnes, which is more than 25 years old, at any point of time, the period of 25 years being computed from the date of initial registration of the said trailer. Explanation--For the purpose of this rule, "multi -axle trailer" means a trailer having more than two axles." 12. Explanation to Rule 88 makes it clear that the 'multi-axle trailer' is one which is having more than two axles, same is true for other goods vehicles. Common dictionary meaning of "Multi" is combined form of many. It may also mean more than one depending on context. Explanation to Rule 88 makes it clear that the 'multi-axle trailer' is one which is having more than two axles, same is true for other goods vehicles. Common dictionary meaning of "Multi" is combined form of many. It may also mean more than one depending on context. "Multi axial" is defined in Oxford English Dictionary to mean "of or involving several axes". Similarly 'Multichannel' means employing or possessing many communication or television channels. 'Multi Colour' means of many colour. The context in which 'multi axle' has been used is amply clear that if a vehicle has several i.e. more than two axles has to be treated as multi axle vehicle. The dictionary meaning of "several" is 'more than two but 'not many'. The intrinsic aid is provided by explanation to Rule 88 itself which provides in case a 'trailer' is having more than two axles, it is a 'multi axle trailer'. I have no hesitation to adopt the same meaning for multi axle heavy goods vehicles. In addition the notification R-2 prescribes maximum safe axle weight for two axle vehicle. The vehicle in question fits in to that description. Considering the number of tyres and permissible weight which can be carried the life of vehicle in question is 12 years not 15 years. 13. It is clear if the vehicle is having more than 2 axles, it has to be treated as multi-axle goods vehicle having the life of 15 years and heavy goods vehicle which are not multi-axle vehicles have the life of 12 years. 14. It is clear from the sales certificate that vehicle has two axles and in application for registration submitted it is mentioned as two axle vehicle and also on reading of the notification R-2 issued by the Government of India on 18.10.1996, the vehicle in question cannot be treated as 'multi-axle vehicle. The order P-6 has dealt with the question of fact of number of axles and interpretation made by the RTO in order P-6 is proper. The submission which was raised before the RTO that the vehicle has four axles, was entirely misconceived. The submission raised that even if the vehicle is having two axles one front and one rear, it is to be treated as multi axle vehicle is equally unacceptable. 15. The submission which was raised before the RTO that the vehicle has four axles, was entirely misconceived. The submission raised that even if the vehicle is having two axles one front and one rear, it is to be treated as multi axle vehicle is equally unacceptable. 15. As the vehicle in question cannot be treated as multi-axle vehicle, the life of it is not 15 years but 12 years. 16. Resultantly, I find writ petitions sans merit and are dismissed. No order as to costs. .......................