JUDGMENT - N.D. VYAS, J. :-The questions raised therein being similar, both the petitions are disposed off by this common judgment. The petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 751 of 1993 is an Association of owners of Cranes and is registered under the Non-trading Corporation Act of 1959. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1008 of 1993 are owners of three container handlers which are registered as Vehicles with the R.T.O., Raigad under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of convenience, I shall only deal with the facts of the Writ Petition No. 751 of 1993.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the mobile cranes (which description for the present petitions would include container handlers also) are vehicles and are registered as motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that formerly cranes were registered as non-transport vehicles, however, with the introduction of the new Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, they came to be classified as transport vehicles. The petitioners grievance is that when such a crane is brought within the octroi limits with the intention of using it permanently, it is required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act with the Regional Transport Office having its jurisdiction over the concerned Municipal or Octroi area and if the vehicle remains in another State for more than twelve months, then it is liable to be registered in the other State as required under section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; that the certificate issued in one State is effective throughout India subject to what is provided in section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act; that the crane is classified as non-transport vehicle and is compulsorily required to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act and that the cranes are used for lifting things and are generally used

only in private places like Docks etc. It is the further submission of the petitioners that a vehicle by its very nature, moves from one place to another and the cranes are also required to be taken from one region to another as work necessitates and remain at any place for a short period of time. It is the grievance of the petitioner that hitherto the cranes were permitted ingress and egress within the Municipal limits of Greater Bombay by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as B.M.C.) without any demand of octroi and the crane was treated as any other vehicle and having regard to its required mobility on account of the nature of vehicle, octroi was not demanded. However, as the respondents now required the petitioners to follow R form procedure as per Rules 7 and 8 of the Municipal Octroi Rules (Exemptions) in respect of cranes .registered with the R.T.O. within the octroi limits, taken outside such limits and returning and as the B.M.C. charged octroi on cranes treating them as machinery and not vehicles when the cranes registered as vehicles outside Greater Bombay were brought within B.M.Cs octroi limits, the present petitions have been filed. In the Writ Petition No. 1008 of 1993 it is the grievance of the petitioners that the three cranes which are brought within the octroi

limits of Greater Bombay on a casual visit i.e. for work or even for repairs, octroi is demanded or R form formality had to be undergone.

3. A short question that requires consideration is whether a mobile crane is a vehicle or machinery. It is the contention of the petitioners that the same is a vehicle. On the other hand, the respondents contend that it is a machinery. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, it would be advantageous to reproduce certain provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) which are relevant for that purpose. Section 3(q) of the said Act defines vehicle and the said definition is as follows:-

"3(q) vehicle includes a carriage, cart, van, dray, truck, handcart and wheeled conveyance of any description capable to being used on the streets of the city."

Sect

Click Here to Read the rest of this document