JUDGMENT : The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. None of the parties has raised any complaint regarding audio and visual quality. I.A. No. 9605 of 2019 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 244 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Heard parties. 3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 244 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. I.A. No. 9605 of 2019 stands allowed. L.P.A. No. 574 of 2019 5. The instant intra-Court appeal is directed against the order/judgment dated 25.09.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.3409 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by showing no interference with the relief sought for pertaining to declaration that the petitioner company is not liable for registration of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery and for restraining the respondent No.3 from taking any punitive measures against the petitioner-Company pursuant to letter No.260 dated 28.11.2013 whereby and whereunder the petitioner-Company was directed to obtain Form 21 and 22 from the manufacturer and get the vehicle registered. 6. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated herein read hereunder as :- The appellant-company is a subsidiary company of Coal India Limited and is engaged in mining and extraction of coal. For open cast mining activities i.e., for excavation, removal and transportation of overburden and for extraction and transportation of coal, the appellant-Company requires Heavy Earth Moving Machinery, such as, Bulldozers, Excavators/Pay Loaders, back-hoe, dumpers, motor grader etc. of a type specifically designed for mining activities. The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that the vehicles like Bulldozers, Excavators etc. For open cast mining activities i.e., for excavation, removal and transportation of overburden and for extraction and transportation of coal, the appellant-Company requires Heavy Earth Moving Machinery, such as, Bulldozers, Excavators/Pay Loaders, back-hoe, dumpers, motor grader etc. of a type specifically designed for mining activities. The case of the writ petitioner-appellant is that the vehicles like Bulldozers, Excavators etc. will not fall under the category of motor vehicles and, as such, not required to be registered before the concerned District Transport Authority but without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, order has been issued by the Authority on 28.11.2013 to obtain Form 21 and 22 from the manufacturer and get the vehicle registered negating the claim agitated by the appellant-Company to the effect that the Heavy Earth Moving Machineries do not come within the definition of ‘motor vehicle’ and not required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The said orders have been assailed before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3409 of 2014 but the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the ratio decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Limited Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (2016) 11 SCC 613 which is the subject matter of the present intra-Court appeal. The instant appeal has been preferred inter alia on the ground that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Limited Vs. State of Maharastra (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case but without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the judgment rendered in the case of Western Coal Fields Limited Vs. State of Maharastra (Supra) has been made applicable by negating the claim agitated by the writ petitioner before the Writ Court. Further on the ground that the Heavy Earth Moving Machineries are especially designed and meant for removal of extraction and removal of coal from mines and exclusive use in the mining area, the authorities cannot insist that the Heavy Earth Moving Machinery is required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. Mr. Further on the ground that the Heavy Earth Moving Machineries are especially designed and meant for removal of extraction and removal of coal from mines and exclusive use in the mining area, the authorities cannot insist that the Heavy Earth Moving Machinery is required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 7. Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C.(L&C)-III, appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions and grounds agitated by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant by advancing the argument that the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court i.e., the basis upon which the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the relief sought for by the writ petitioner-appellant, is wholly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in dismissing the writ petition. 8. This Court, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, deems it fit and proper to first consider the applicability of the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in different cases on the issue. The issue involved in the instant case fell for consideration in the case of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 133 wherein the consideration made was as to whether the Dumpers and Rockers with rubber tyres used for transport of goods within the enclosed factory premises will be treated to be motor vehicles or not and liable to taxation under the provisions of the Taxation Act applicable. The Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to decide the said issue as under paragraph 9 thereof by taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [ (1974) 2 SCC 777 ] by holding that the Dumpers and Rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per se, as held in Bolani Ores Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (Supra), were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads, the network of which the State spreads, maintains it and keeps available for use of motor vehicles and hence is entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax. State of Orissa (Supra), were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads, the network of which the State spreads, maintains it and keeps available for use of motor vehicles and hence is entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax. Again in the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another reported in (1996) 10 SCC 676 , the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue that if the vehicles are being used, for most of the time, within the mining area, can it be categorized under the ‘Motor Vehicles’, by taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Others (Supra), has held that the motor vehicles, even though the same are being used within the mining premises, will come under the definition of ‘Motor Vehicles’ and are taxable within the ambit of Taxation Act. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is being quoted hereunder :- 9. On these facts it is difficult for us to hold that the vehicles are not adapted or suitable or capable of being used on public roads, even though for most of the time they might actually be used within the mining areas on the roads prepared by the mining owners. Following the two earlier judgments of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd. [1992 Supp (3) SCC 133] and Union of India v. Chowgule & Co. [1992 Supp (3) SCC 141] we hold that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable within the ambit of the Taxation Act.” In the case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (1997) 5 SCC 752 it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that merely because the areas on which such heavy-movers traverse might sometimes include roads also is not enough to hold that they were “adapted for use upon roads”. Such use of the heavy-mover on the road may only be ancillary or incidental to the main use of it and as such it has been laid down therein that tyres of the size 1800 and above would fall within the residuary sub-item (3) in Item 16 of the Central Excise Tariff during the relevant period. In the case of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. Vs. In the case of Natwar Parikh and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in (2005) 7 SCC 364 it has been laid down therein that the tractor-trailer falls under Section 2(14 as a “goods carriage” and consequently, it falls under definition of “transport vehicle” under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The question as to whether the Excavator is to be considered as a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 fell for consideration before the two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Western Coalfields Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 615. The two Judges Bench, taking into consideration the fact that the judgment in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others (Supra) is by three Judges Bench, therefore, the matter pertaining to Western Coalfields Limited was decided to be referred before the three Judges Bench and in view thereof, the matter has been decided by the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment delivered on 6th May, 2016 reported in (2016) 11 SCC 613 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the three Judges Bench in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others (Supra), has been pleased to hold that the Excavators will fall within the meaning of definition of motor vehicles contained in Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. Learned Single Judge, by considering the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Western Coal Fields Limited Vs. State of Maharastra (Supra), has come to conclusive finding that the vehicles in question will fall within the ambit of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view thereof, in our considered view, since the vehicles involved in this case also are Bulldozers, Excavators/Pay Loaders, back-hoe, dumpers, motor grader etc., hence as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred hereinabove, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with. 10. Accordingly, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity and requires no interference. 11. In the result, the instant appeal fails and the same is dismissed.