Judgment

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- These appeals raise a common question as to whether Dumpers, Rockers and Tractors are motor vehicles within the meaning of the relevant State Motor Vehicles Taxation Acts, and are accordingly taxable thereunder. Apart from these appeals, Bolani Ores Ltd.-Appellant in Civil Appeal No.1816 of 1968-has filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1980. The question raised in the writ petition will only arise for determination, if the judgment of the High Court of Orissa is held- to be valid, otherwise the question of the constitutional validity of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Taxation Act ) does not fall for determination as that would be purely academic.

2. The two Civil Appeals Nos. 1816 of 1968 and 1817 of l968 arise out of two suits - one filed by Bolani Ores Ltd. and the other by Orissa Minerals Development Company Ltd. respectively, for a declaration that the machineries in their possession which were described in the respective Schedules to the plaints were not liable for registration under Section 22 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act - hereinafter referred to as the Act , and cannot, therefore, be taxed under Section 6 of the Taxation Act. In the suit filed by Bolani Ores Ltd., 8 types of machinery were involved: (1) Shovels, (2) Drill Master, (3) Caterpillar Bull-dozers, (4) Rockers, (5) Dumpers, (6) Motor Grader, (7) Tractors and (8) Fargo Truck fitted with serving tank for diesel oil etc. The Trial Court held that all the items of machinery as above mentioned, except item (6) i.e. Motor Grader, came within the definition of a motor vehicle given in Section 2 (18) of the Act, and were therefore liable for registration under Section 22 of the Act as well as payment of taxes under the Taxation Act. Against this decision, First Appeal No. 44 of 1963 was filed in the Orissa High Court.* The State did not file any cross appeal against the declaration that item (6) was not taxable. The High Court was of the view that unless it is shown that the vehicle is of a special type adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises and incapable of running on any other type of roads or public roads, the vehicles were motor vehicles. It was conceded during the hearing on behalf of the appellant that type (8) Fargo Truck clearly comes within the definition of motor vehicle and likewise the Advocate General conceded that type (2) Ingersell-Hand-Drill Master cannot be held to be a Motor Vehicle. The High Court accordingly modified the order of the Trial Court in respect of the types in items (1), (2) and (3). It held that these three types as well as the Motor Grader in item (a) already held by the Trial Court not to be a motor vehicle, were not liable for registration under Section 22 of the Act, nor would they be subject to payment of tax under the Taxation Act.

3. In the suit filed by Orissa Mineral Development Company Ltd. out of which First Appeal No. 45 of 1963, Reported in AIR 1968 Orissa 1 arose, the plaintiff sought a declaration that nine types of machinery which it owns were not liable for registration under the Act: Items (1) and (2) being Dumpers, (3) and (3-A) Tractors, (4) Caterpillar Trax Cavetror, (5) and (6) Caterpillar Bull-dozers, (7) and (8) Scrapers and (9) Shovel. The Trial Court found on evidence that items (4) to (9) had a sort of crawler mechanism and were not adapted for regular use on the roads. This fact was also admitted by the opposite party. Accordingly it held that the vehicles in these items did not come within the ambit of the definition of motor vehicle under Section 2 (18) and were not liable for registration under Section 22 of the Act. The case of Dumpers and Tractors (items (1) to (3) and (3-A) however, was held to stand on a different footing, as these vehicles were adopted for being used on roads for transporting the goods of the plaintiff