Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 105 (UTT)

Pawan Pandey v. Uttarakhand Van Vikas Nigam

2018-03-13

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners before this Court are the owners of tractor-trolleys and are, inter alia, either engaged in lifting or transport of river bed material, or are desirous to do this work. In order to do the said work, which is a mining activity, the petitioners’ vehicle have to be registered with the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. In some cases, according to the petitioners, similar vehicles have been registered with the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, but in District Champawat, the petitioners are facing this problem, primarily due to the objections raised by a certain truck association which operates a particular brand of truck known as “Shaktiman” truck. It is because of their objection that registration is being refused to the petitioners. 2. In fact in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3268 of 2017 and Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3279 of 2017, one of the prayers is for quashing the order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the Divisional Logging Manger (Mining), Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. The said officer has refused to grant registration certificate to the petitioners even while admitting that in many cases similar vehicles have been registered but because in these cases (WPMS No. 3268 of 2017 & WPMS No. 3279 of 2017), there is an objection from “Shaktiman Truck Association”, the registration cannot be granted. In other words, in WPMS No. 3268 of 2017 and WPMS No. 3279 of 2017, the sole reason for rejecting the registration of the petitioner vehicle is that their registration is being opposed by a truck association known as “Shaktiman Truck Association”. 3. This can never be a valid reason for refusing registration of a vehicle, when in ordinary course such is registration is being granted. The reasons are patently wrong, to say the least. Consequently the order dated 19.12.2017 is hereby quashed. 4. Having made the aforesaid determination, the problem, however, remains inasmuch as in all cases (including WPMS No. 3268 of 2017 & WPMS No. 3279 of 2017), the other prayer is for direction to the respondent authorities for registering of their vehicles. 5. From some of the counter affidavits, which this Court has received on behalf of the State and the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, as well as the objection raised before this Court by the “Shaktiman Truck Association” through its counsel Mr. 5. From some of the counter affidavits, which this Court has received on behalf of the State and the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, as well as the objection raised before this Court by the “Shaktiman Truck Association” through its counsel Mr. D.S. Patni, the main objection seems to be that the motor vehicle of the petitioners which is a tractor-trolley cannot be defined as a motor vehicle. The definition of “motor vehicle” is given under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: “2. Definition. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding twenty-five cubic centimeters.” 6. “Tractor” is defined under Section 2 (44) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: “2. Definition. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - “(44) “Tractor” means a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load (other than equipment used for the purpose of propulsion); but excludes a road-roller.” 7. The definition of “Trailer” is given under Section 2 (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: “2. Definition. – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - “(46) “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.” 8. Therefore, a trailer which is driven by a tractor, which is a motor vehicle can ply on a public road. However, under the Rules framed by the State of Uttarakhand known as Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, there are certain restrictions on the kind of trailer, which can be attached to a tractor. 9. Rule 173 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 reads as under: “173. However, under the Rules framed by the State of Uttarakhand known as Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, there are certain restrictions on the kind of trailer, which can be attached to a tractor. 9. Rule 173 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 reads as under: “173. Trailers fitted with tractors – No tractor shall draw on a public road, a trailer exceeding half a ton in weight un-laden and fitted with solid steel wheels less than 60 centimeters in diameter.” 10. The learned counsels for the respondents would argue that as per Rule 173 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011, which have been framed under the Act, a tractor of a certain dimension and particulars cannot be allowed to run on a road. 11. To the contrary, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the aforesaid provision i.e. Rule 173 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 is not attracted in their case as their case is in fact covered under sub-rule (5) of Rule 172 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that a trailer which is attached to a tractor does not come under the provision of Section 173 of the Rules and in fact it comes under sub-section (5) of Section 172 of the Rules. Section 172 of the Uttarakhand Motor Vehicles Rules, 2011 reads as under: “172. Prohibition of attachment of trailer to certain vehicles. – (1) No motor vehicle shall be driven in any place with more than three trailers attached to it. (2) The State Transport Authority may, by general or special resolution containing reasons therefore and subject to such conditions, as may be specified therein, prohibit or restrict the attachment of trailers or any particular type of trailers generally on any specified route or area, to any motor vehicle or class of motor vehicles. (3) No motor vehicle, which exceeds 7.95 meters in length, shall draw a trailer: Provided that this rule shall not apply to any disabled motor vehicle being towed in consequence of disablement. (4) No motor vehicle or train made of motor vehicle with one or more trailers attached shall be driven in any public place if such motor vehicle or train exceeds 22.85 meters in length. (4) No motor vehicle or train made of motor vehicle with one or more trailers attached shall be driven in any public place if such motor vehicle or train exceeds 22.85 meters in length. (5) No trailer shall be attached to or drawn by any motor vehicle in any public place if the laden weight of the trailers exceeds the limits given below: (i) Trailers fitted with pneumatic tyres on all wheels; 8,982 kilograms. (ii) Trailers fitted with other than pneumatic tyres on all wheels, 3,982 kilograms.” 13. Since this matter relates to examination of the factual aspects, all these writ petitions are disposed with the following directions : There seems to be no difficulty as to the finding that tractor is also a motor vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under permissible limits even a trailer can be attached to a tractor, but whether the kind of trailer which is being attached to the tractor of the petitioners is permissible under the law is a matter which needs to be examined. The Regional Transport Authority, Uttarakhand shall examine the matter in the light of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed therein and after examining the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter, if it comes to the conclusion that the kind of trailer which is being attached to the tractor of the petitioners is permissible under the law, the registration should be granted to the petitioners. The Regional Transport Authority, Uttarakhand shall pass an independent order without being prejudiced to any order earlier passed by the District Magistrate. Let the matter be decided by the Regional Transport Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 14. Let a certified copy of this order be issued within twenty-four hours on payment of usual charges.