Machines structurally adaptable for road use are motor vehicles, requiring registration and tax under relevant acts, regardless of exclusive use within private premises.

JUDGMENT :

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

1. The petitioner, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of plywood and veneer at its factory in Vettickal, Mulanthuruthy, Ernakulam, uses two forklifts, purchased in 2005 and 2017, and a crane, purchased in 2002, exclusively for lifting and moving timber logs within its 6-acre factory premises. It is the petitioner’s case that these machines function solely as material- handling equipment inside the enclosed factory compound and are never used on public roads, and therefore, they do not fall within the definition of “motor vehicle” under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and do not require registration.

2. It is contended that, based on a complaint allegedly lodged by certain disgruntled workers, the 2^nd respondent conducted an inspection and issued Exhibit P4 dated 09.05.2025, directing the stoppage of the equipment’s use, citing lack of maintenance, registration, and insurance. According to the petitioner, these allegations are baseless, as the forklifts and crane are treated as machinery under Section 29 of the Factories Act, 1948, and undergo periodic safety examinations, evidenced by Exhibits P5, P5(a), and P5(b). The crane is also covered under the factory’s fire insurance policy applicable to all machinery.

3. The petitioner further contends that Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , mandates registration only for vehicles intended to be used “in a public place,” and since the equipment in question is operated exclusively within a private enclosed factory, the impugned direction is without jurisdiction. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the quashing of Ext. P4 and a declaration that the forklifts and cranes used solely within the petitioner’s factory for material-handling purposes do not come within the definition of “motor vehicle” under Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act and consequently do not require registration under the Act. The petitioners relied on RDS Project Limited v. Union of India, 2024 KHC Online 1000, Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1974) 2 SCC 777, Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 619, Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1851.

4. The respondents in the statement filed contend that based on a complaint dated 28.03.2025 from the Secretary of the CPI(M) Mulamthuruthy Local Committee alleging that the petitioner was operating two forklifts and a crane without valid registration or insurance, an inspection was conducted which confirmed that all three vehicles were unregistered, uninsured, and had not undergone fitness testing since their purchase in 2002, 2005, and 2017. Though the petitioner admitted that the machines were used within the factory premises, they declined to register on the ground that they were not operated on public roads. The respondents contend that the forklifts and cranes are roadworthy and capable of being used on public roads at any time and hence fall within Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act. They further argue that the petitioner’s factory premises are accessible to workers, visitors, and other vehicles, and therefore constitute a “public place” under Section 2 (34), which includes any place where the public has a right of access—whether permissive, limited, regulated, or through passes—as held by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pandurang Chimaji Agale and Another v. New India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1988 Bom 248.

5. It is therefore contended that the forklifts and cr