Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
R. K. Das And G. K. Misra, JJ.
BOLANI ORES LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR - Respondent
First Appeal 45 Of 1963
Decided On : MARCH 30, 1967
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 2(18) - TAXATION ACT - SECTION 6 - REGISTRATION AND TAXATION OF MACHINERIES USED IN MINING OPERATIONS - INTERPRETATION OF 'MOTOR VEHICLE' AND 'ADAPTED FOR USE UPON ROADS' - CLASSIFICATION OF MACHINERIES AS MOTOR VEHICLES OR NOT.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a mining lessee, filed suits for a declaration that the machineries used in his mining operations were not liable for registration under Section 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act and taxation under Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. The plaintiff contended that the machineries were not 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the Act and were not adapted for use on roads.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the machineries, except for a Motor Grader, came within the definition of 'motor vehicles' and were liable for registration and taxation. The court found that the machineries were mechanically propelled and were not adapted for use on fixed rails, and that the mining area, though extensive, could not be considered an 'enclosed premises' within the meaning of the Act. The court also held that the user of a vehicle determines its category, and that the fact that a vehicle is not constructed or adapted for a particular use does not mean that it cannot be used for that purpose.
Issues: 1. Whether the machineries used in the plaintiff's mining operations were 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Whether the machineries were adapted for use upon roads within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Whether the mining area could be considered an 'enclosed premises' within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the machineries were 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act because they were mechanically propelled and were not adapted for use on fixed rails. The court found that the mining area, though extensive, could not be considered an 'enclosed premises' within the meaning of the Act. 2. The court held that the user of a vehicle determines its category, and that the fact that a vehicle is not constructed or adapted for a particular use does not mean that it cannot be used for that purpose. The court found that the machineries were used to transport ores from the place of excavation to the railway wagon that are within the mining area, and thus were adapted for being used on roads for transporting the goods of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals in part. The court held that the machineries, except for a Motor Grader, came within the definition of 'motor vehicles' and were liable for registration and taxation. The court also held that the mining area could not be considered an 'enclosed premises' within the meaning of the Act.
DAS, J.
( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of two suits filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the machineries in their possession, and as described in Schedule A of the plaint, are not liable for registration under Section 22 of the Indian Motor Vehicles act (hereinafter described as the Act') and as such cannot be taxed under Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'taxation Act') as they do not come within the ambit of the definition of 'motor vehicles' given in Section 2 (18) of the said Act. As both the appeals raise common questions of law they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. First Appeal No. 44 of 1963. The machineries in respect of which the plaintiff seeks a declaration as aforesaid are:
(1) 2 Cu Yd. Lorain Shovels. . . two Nos. (2) Ingersoll-Rand Drill Master. . . two Nos. (3) Caterpiller D-8 Bull-dozers. . . two Nos. (4) Le Tourneau Rockers. . . two Nos. (5) Euclid Dumpers. . . five Nos. (6) Motor Grader. . . one No. (7) Fordson Major Tractors. . . four Nos. (8) Fargo Truck fitted withserving tank for diesel oil, greasing and lubrication unit, oxygen acteylene cutting equipment and an elec. welding set. . . one No.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a holder of mining leases carrying mining operations within his leasehold areas covering several square miles in the district of Keonjhar. The plaintiff's case is that he is using these machineries in connection with his mining operations in the lease-hold areas. Lorain Shovels (item No. 1) are used to dig up the ore after blasting and to load the same into either the Le Tourneau Rockers (item No 4) or the Euclid Dumpers (item No 5) from the mining faces to the crushing and screening plant or from the hand-mine stock-pile to the railway siding nearby Ingersoll Rand Drill Masters (item No. 2) are used to dig holes through the ore body so that the explosives can be placed in the hole and the ore blasted. The Caterpiller D-8 Bull-dozers (item No. 3) are machines used to cut and push earth above the ore-bed and the Motor Grader (item No. 6) is used to level the roads and to maintain a clear surface. The Fordson Major Tractors (item No. 7)are used of supply compressed air to the Jack hammer Drills which are used to drill holes in the ore so that charges of explosives may be inserted to break the ore into manageable sizes Fargo Truck (item No. 8) is meant to be a servicing unit.
( 3 ) THE Superintendent of Police, Keonjhar, within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff operates as a mining lessee and uses the aforesaid machineries called upon the plaintiff to get them registered under Section 22 of the Act on payment of taxes as provided under Section 6 of the Taxation Act, as he was of the view that these machineries are 'motor Vehicles' within the meaning of the Act. As the plaintiff was threatened to be prosecuted in case he failed to get them registered, he did so, and filed the present suit for a declaration that the machineries are not liable to registration under Section 22 of the Act.
( 4 ) THE case of the State is that the various types of the machineries used by the plaintiff and as enumerated above are 'motor vehicles' within the meaning of the act and as such are liable to taxation under the Taxation Act.
( 5 ) THE learned trial Court held that all the items of the machineries as mentioned in the plaint schedule, except item No. 6, that is, a Motor Grader, come within the definition of 'motor Vehicles' and as such, are liable to registration under Section 22 of the Act, and payment of taxes as provided under the Taxation Act. Against this decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. There was no cross-appeal by the State in respect of item No. 6 decided in favour of the plaintiff.
( 6 ) IN course of hearing of the appeals, learned counsel for the plaintiff conceded that a Fargo Truck (item No. 8. clearly comes within the purview of the definition
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
