Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 731 (JHR)

CENTRAL COALFIELDS LTD. v. STATE OF BIHAR

2005-09-23

R.K.MERATHIA

body2005
Judgment : R. K. MERATHIA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. ( 2 ) THE question involved in this case is as to whether certain types of machineries exclusively used within the enclosed premises of mine and which are not adapted for use upon roads are motor vehicles under section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 so as to attract the payment of the road tax and the additional tax under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act ). ( 3 ) PETITIONERs case is that it is a government company and for the purpose of its mining activities, it uses certain machineries, such as shovels, traxcavators, cranes, rappridozers, excavators, etc. , which are not adapted for use upon roads. Petitioners further case is that the said machines were/are not plied on road and they ply exclusively within the enclosed premises of the mines. ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Mehta submitted that the respondents have not denied that the said machines are not adapted for use upon roads. He further submitted that the respondents have also not denied that they are used only in the enclosed premises of the mine. Relying on the decision in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777 , he submitted that the machines being not suitable for use on roads cannot be said to be motor vehicles. ( 5 ) MR. H. K. Mehta, the learned G. A. appearing for the respondents could not dispute the said position. However, he submitted that if the said machines use the public roads, the road will be damaged. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner should ensure that the said machines do not use public road and they are used within the enclosed premises of the mines, for the purpose of taking out the machines out of the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the said machines are not adapted for use upon roads and were/are used within the enclosed premises of the mines and thus cannot be held to be motor vehicles. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Mr. ( 6 ) AFTER hearing the parties, I am satisfied that the said machines are not adapted for use upon roads and were/are used within the enclosed premises of the mines and thus cannot be held to be motor vehicles. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, Mr. A. K. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner admitted that in view of the judgment in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1992 SC 1371 , petitioner cannot contend that payloaders, rockers and the dumpers are not motor vehicles, which were/are treated as motor vehicles for the purpose of registration, road tax and additional taxes. ( 8 ) IN the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .