H.L.Agrawal, J.

1. This application in revision is by the plaintiff who has failed to secure an order of iniunction from the Courts below till the disposal of the title suit instituted by it for permanently restraining the defendants from seizing its eight vehicles (dumpers) under Sec.129-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , hereinafter referred to simply as the Act.

2. In order to appreciate the question raised in this application, it is necessary to state the relevant facts,. The petitioner company is a public sector undertaking of the Government of India and is engaged in the construction works of the Bokaro Steel Plant In course of the construction work, the petitioner has to engage heavy earth-moving machineries like dumpers, cranes, etc. to carry out the construction works and the petitioner has been using eight dumpers in course of the same. According to the petitioner, the area of operation of these dumpers was strictly confined within the premises of the Bokaro Steel Limited. These were vehicles of special type adapted for use in a factory or other enclosed premises and were not driven on the public road. Accordingly, it is contended that these vehicles did cot come within the definition of "motor vehicle" as denned under Sec.2 (18) of the Act.

3. "Motor Vehicle has been defined in clause (18) of Sec.2 of the Act as follows:

" "motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle adaoted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer: 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."

The case of the petitioner is that the dumpers in question were not liable for registration under the Act and this fact was intimated by it to the authorities concerned, but the Superintendent of Police. Dhanbad (defendant No. 2) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Dhanbad (Registering authority under the Motor Vehicles Act (defendant No. 3) were threatening the petitioner that unless the said vehicles were registered under Sec.22 of the Act and taxes were paid under Sec. 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, the same will be seized. According to the plaintiff, the threat was unauthorised by law as It was not liable either to get the vehicles registered or to pay any tax under the aforesaid provisions. Accordingly, it has instituted Title Suit No. 54 of 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judga, First Court, Dhanbad, for a declaration that the vehicles in question were not liable for registration and as such could not be taxed under the aforesaid provision. A petition for interim injunction was filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendants and their agents from illegally and wrongfully seizing the said vehicles. Ad interim injunction was granted by the trial Court, but on final hearing. It was vacated. An appeal was taken by the petitioner before the District Judge, where also it failed, and. therefore, this application.

4. The petitioners stand has been challenged by the opposite party and in the written statement it has been asserted that the vehicles in question were not exempted either from registration or from payment of the road tax and, therefore, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were fully entitled to seize the vehicles in question on default of the plaintiff either to get the vehicles registered or to pay the taxes.

5. Mr. K.D. Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner in support of this application submitted that the dumpers in question were not "Motor Vehicles" according to the definition given in Sec.2 (18) of the Act which has been quoted above. He further submitted that Sec.22 of the Act had no application to the case of the petitioner. Sec.22 of the Act reads as follows:

"No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or