Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.J. Desai, J.
Rinku Commercial Carrier Private Limited & Others – Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Gujarat & Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 10758 of 2007
Decided On : 06-09-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.S. Champaneri.
For the Respondent: Ms. V.C. Shah.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that vehicles granted exemptions by one state can be detained in another state if the specific conditions imposed by the granting state limit the validity of the exemption to its own territory.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Exemption - 1988 - Section 110(3)(a), Section 110(3)(b), Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Overall Dimension of Motor Vehicles (Prescription of Conditions for Exemption) Rules, 1991 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 110(3)(a) and Section 110(3)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and the Overall Dimension of Motor Vehicles (Prescription of Conditions for Exemption) Rules, 1991. The court emphasized the power of the Central Government and State Government to exempt motor vehicles from the provisions of Chapter-VII and the rules made under it. The court also highlighted the conditions for the grant of exemption from Rule-93 and the validity of exemptions granted under the Overall Rules, 1991 throughout India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in commercial transportation, filed a petition seeking relief from the respondents preventing the prosecution or detention of vehicles granted exemptions from the operation of Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 by the Central or State Governments. The vehicles were detained by the State of Gujarat despite being granted exemption by the State of Maharashtra.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the vehicles were detained in accordance with the specific conditions imposed by the State of Maharashtra, and any challenge to these conditions should have been made in the State of Maharashtra. The court found no need to pronounce judgment on other prayers and discharged the rule.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of detaining vehicles granted exemptions by one state when entering another state, the power of the Central and State Governments to grant exemptions, and the validity of exemptions granted under the Overall Rules, 1991 throughout India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the vehicles were detained in accordance with the specific conditions imposed by the State of Maharashtra, and any challenge to these conditions should have been made in the State of Maharashtra. The court found no need to pronounce judgment on other prayers and discharged the rule.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
A.J. DESAI, J.
1. By way of the present petition filed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India, the following prayers have been made:
“[A] That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction preventing the respondents, their agents, servants or subordinated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from either prosecuting or issuing memo to the vehicles of the petitioner-company which have been granted exemptions from operation of the Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 either by the Central Government or by any other State Government and more particularly described in the order of exemptions at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively;
[B] That this Honourable Court will be pleased to issue appropriated writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction preventing the respondents, their agents or subordinate officers from treating the petitioners' vehicles granted exemption either by the Central government of by the State of Maharashtra by the aforesaid orders at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J Collectively.
[C] That this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to repay the compounding free recovered from the vehicles of the petitioner-company which have been granted exemption either by the Central Government or by the State of Maharashtra by the aforesaid order Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively.
[D] That this Honourable Court will be pleased to order to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants or subordinate officers through out the State from recovering any fine or imposing the penalty of the vehicles owner by the petitioner-company which have been granted exemptions from operation of Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 either by the Central Government or by the State of Maharashtra by the afore said orders at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively till and pending hearing and final disposal of this petition;
[E] That this Honourable Court will be pleased to order to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants or subordinate officers throughout the State from detaining the vehicles owned by the petitioner-company which have been granted exemption from operation of Rule-93 of the Central Motor Vehicles, 1989 either by the Central Government or by the State of Maharashtra by the aforesaid order at Annexure-F, Annexure-H, Annexure-I and Annexure-J collectively till and pending hearing and final disposal of this petition.”
2. Pursuant to notice issued by the Court, respondents have appeared and filed reply.
3. Brief facts arise from the record are as under:
3.1 That petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioner No. 2 is the director of petitioner company and is engaged in the business of commercial transportation of the tractor and farm equipment of other vehicles and goods from the manufacturing units of various companies to the dealers of the said companies located at various places throughout the country. The petitioner company is transporting the vehicles of various companies such as Eicher Motors Limited, Escorts Limited, Force Motors Limited, HMT Limited, Indo Farm Tractors & Motors Limited, International Tractors Limited, John Deere Equipment Private Limited, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, New Holland Tractors Limited, Punjab Tractors Limited, Same Deuts Fahr Limited, Tranctor and Farm Equipments (TAFE) limited.
3.2 Chapter-VII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1988’ for short) proves constructions/equipments and maintenance of the motor vehicles and empowers
