ORDER : The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the non-generic Cranes and Hoppers belonging to the Petitioners are not a vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act and consequently declare the action of the 4th Respondent in coercing the Petitioner to pay LT tax towards the No.6 non-generic cranes and No.3 Hoppers stationed at the Kakinada Port instead of passing detailed Orders on the taxability of the said type of non generic Cranes and Hoppers belonging to the Petitioners in accordance with the Order of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.03.2017, in Writ Petition No.5947 of 2011 as being arbitrary unreasonable and malafide apart from suffering from a non application on mind and consequently quash the memo No.029402B32015 dated 28.08.2017 and 02.11.2016, as being illegal, and arbitrary and without the authority of Law and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of Justice…” 2. The petitioner is a company in the business of hiring of cranes for loading and unloading activities throughout India, primarily in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner having entered into an agreement with the Kakinda Sea Port, since 2005, have erected mobile cranes and uploading hoppers on the site and commenced their operations at the Kakinada Seaport. The case of the petitioner is that the mobile cranes and hoppers are used only to load/unload cargo from ships or into the ships and the cranes are stationed on the berth which will have very little movement which includes forward and backward, along with one hatch (cargo hold) to another hatch of the ship having operators to operate them who are trained technically, and the type of cranes that are assembled at Kakinda Port is the ‘Harbor Mobile Crane Type-LHM 400’ and the cargo unloading hopper, are neither a regular crane nor a vehicle or motor vehicle as defined under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made there under. 3. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, on 23.02.2011 had issued a notice bearing R.No.7885/C1/2011 whereby the petitioner was informed that he has not paid life tax and other taxes totaling an amount of Rs.2,04,03,080/- for the crane bearing chassis No.140451 and thereafter the said crane was seized and the operations of the petitioner were affected because of which the petitioner filed W.P.No.5947 of 2011 before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of on 14.03.2011 directing the petitioner as follows: “…leaving it open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Transport Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh, the 3rd respondent herein, within 15 days from today, regarding application of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder for their crane. The 3rd respondent in turn shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the vehicle check report dated 15.02.2011, shall not be given effect to...” 4. The further case of the petitioner is that even prior to filing of the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted explanation to the said notice dated 18.03.2011, explaining what type of crane was used by him and why it may not be taxed and clearly stated that the said crane used by him is a special type, adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises and is excluded from taxation. The respondents herein, instead of considering the said representation made by the petitioner have issued another notice dated 24.10.2011 as if the petitioner has not submitted his representation extracting the operative portion of the order of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.5947 of 2011 and sought for explanation from the petitioner for which the petitioner submitted a reply again on 29.10.2011. Thereafter, as there were no orders from the respondents, the petitioner was under the impression that the respondents being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, have dropped the proceedings. Thereafter, as there were no orders from the respondents, the petitioner was under the impression that the respondents being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, have dropped the proceedings. But, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, once again after a lapse of 4 years, as if the entire early instant has occurred once again, the respondents chose to issue vehicle check reports for not only the very same crane barring chassis No.140451 but also to 5 other identical cranes and 3 unloading hoppers operating in the Kakinada Port vide VCR’s dated 19.09.2015, for which the petitioner again submitted his explanation on 24.09.2015, explaining how the said cranes do not come under the definition of Motor Vehicles Act, and are excluded from taxation. 5. Having received the said explanation, again the respondents remained silent for one year and suddenly on 02.11.2016, again issued show cause notice for recovery of life taxes and other amounts to be payable for the 6 crane and 3 hoppers whose VCRs were conducted in the year 2015, including the crane which was covered by the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.03.2011, for which the petitioner has again submitted his explanation on 23.11.2016. Thereafter, the respondents issued a memo on 28.0.2017 without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner and conveyed their decision to collect the tax immediately. The petitioner thereafter having no other option, filed a writ petition on 09.09.2016 stating that even though the equipment herein are cranes by nomenclature and generic cranes have now been brought under the purview of taxation, the subject cranes and hoppers are in no manner a construction equipment vehicle and a physical examination of the equipment will prove that the same cannot be termed as vehicles by any stretch of imagination, challenging the said action of the respondents, the present writ petition is filed. 6. Learned Government Pleader had produced a copy of the proceedings of the Union Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated 13.07.2020 which deals with the registration/driving license concerns for Road Building and Rehabilitation equipments and Heavy Earth Moving Machineries (HEMM) under Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMVR), 1989, where in the B reads as follows: “B. Representation regarding of Heavy Earth Moving Machinery (HEMM)- wherein concern regarding registration of HEMM equipment and their operation has been raised. HEMM such as Dumpers, Payloaders, SHovels, Drill Master, Bulldozers, Motor Grader and Rock breakers are also categorized as “OFF THE ROAD” operated and maintained with in mine boundary under sole management, supervision and control of Mines Manager and never used outside mine boundary; a. Section 2 (28) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 for the definition of a Motor Vehicle is stated as under: “Motor Vehicle or Vehicle means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted (hereto from an external or internal source and included a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailed; 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. b. Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for necessity for driving license. “NO person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do.” 7. On a perusal of the definition of a Motor Vehicle as defined under section 2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it appears that the present cranes or the hoppers used by the petitioners do not fall under the said definition, and cannot be considered as a motor vehicle. 8. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to dispose of the representation made by the petitioner on 09.06.2011 without treating the petitioner's vehicles as Motor Vehicle as defined under section 2(28) of Motor Vehicles Act and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Until such time, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the Tax Amount from the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned Memo. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.