Heavy Earth Moving Vehicles Under MVA Can Only Be Driven By Licensed Individuals: Jharkhand High Court
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that registration of mining equipment, including drill masters and dumpers is mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Court has further said that the issue of whether a vehicle is taxable or not will depend upon the test as to whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another.Brief FactsThe petitioner,...
The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that registration of mining equipment, including drill masters and dumpers is mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the Court has further said that the issue of whether a vehicle is taxable or not will depend upon the test as to whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), has its coal mines at Chasnalla Area of Dhanbad district from where coal for its steel plant was mined. For the purpose of mining coal, the petitioner purchases heavy earth-moving equipment and exclusively uses them within the leasehold area.
These vehicles, including Haulpak Dumpers, Water Sprinklers, Excavators, Dozers, Drillers, etc., are substantial in size and incapable of plying on roads. Manufacturers categorized them as "off-road vehicles" for excise duty and other taxes.
The petitioner did not apply for the registration of these vehicles under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and rules made thereunder, as the said vehicles do not fall within the definition of “motor vehicle” or construction equipment vehicle.
Notably, on 28.08.2014, the petitioner received a letter directing them to register their heavy earth-moving equipment under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, on 07.09.2014, another letter was issued, reinforcing the directive to register the heavy earth-moving vehicles in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Aggrieved by the above letters issued by the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, however, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, and held that dumpers, payloaders, shovels, drill masters, bulldozers, etc., had been deemed to fall under the definition of "motor vehicles" under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This dismissal formed the subject matter of the intra-court appeal.
Observations Of The Court
The central issue before the court revolved around whether the vehicles in question fell within the ambit of Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Highlighting a precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. V. State of Orissa [(1974) 2 SCC 777], the court emphasized that vehicles like dumpers or rockers are indeed considered motor vehicles requiring registration. The Apex Court's reasoning in that case emphasized the importance of registration to ensure the safety of passengers and goods, as well as to maintain control over these vehicles. The court further clarified that registration is necessary, and the applicability of the Taxation Act depends on whether the vehicle is used within the owner's premises.
In addition to the Bolani Ores Ltd. case, the court referred to the Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors [2005) 7 SCC 364] case, which introduced a test to determine if a vehicle is used for transporting goods. This test focuses on assessing whether a vehicle is adapted for goods carriage, a critical factor in determining tax liability.
The court also considered a previous order from a Co-ordinate Bench in L.P.A. No. 574 of 2019, which mandated the registration of the vehicle in question under Section 2(28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Taking into account these observations and references to prior judgments, the court reached the decision to dismiss the petition.
After thoroughly discussing both the factual aspects and legal positions, the court revisited the order issued by the Single Judge.
The court concluded that the Single Judge had thoroughly considered all relevant facts in light of the applicable legal principles.
Furthermore, the court noted that the Single Judge had acknowledged the advisory board's decision but had refrained from examining its legality and propriety.
In this context, the division bench of Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Navneet Kumar asserted, "we are of the view that the advisory note cannot prevail upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in view of provision of Article 141 of the Constitution of India read with Article 144 thereof, whereby and whereunder if any judgment has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court it has got binding effect and over and above any advisory is being issued the same will not prevail upon the law laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of India."
Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, the court decided to dismiss the instant appeal.
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA Ms. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG-IA
Case Title: Steel Authority of India Ltd vs. The State of Jharkhand and others
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 3
Case No. L.P.A. No. 630 of 2022