ORDER

Rusia, J. -- 1. Appellants/State have filed the present writ appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the writ Court in Writ Petition No.10934/2018 whereby the writ petition was allowed by quashing the demand raised by the appellants No.2 and 3.

2. Facts of the case in short are as under :--

i. The respondent/writ petitioner is the company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the business of sale of heavy commercial vehicles under the brand name of “MAN” (in short “the Company”). The company set up a manufacturing unit at Pithampur Industrial Area, District-Dhar. After manufacturing the vehicles, the company under authorization issues a temporary registration certificate for the period of a month for the purposes of transporting the vehicle to prospective purchasers through dealers. Under section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read with rule 45 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 the competent authority can authorizes an officer of the manufacturing company to issue a temporary registration certificate for the period of one month. All of a sudden appellant No.2 issued an order dated 14.9.2016 directing all the Regional Transport Officers in the State of M.P. by giving an interpretation of the expression “a month” that if the temporary registration is issued to a vehicle and 30 days of it falls on any day of the consequent month then in such event Motor Yan Kara /Vehicle Tax shall be levied for two months. Based on the aforesaid order dated 14.9.2016 appellant No.3 vide letter dated 14.4.2017 has demanded taxes for two months for all the vehicles manufactured since the date of establishment of the manufacturing unit of the company. The petitioner submitted a reply/objection on 30.5.2017 clarifying that under rule 45 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 company issues a temporary registration certificate with validity of period of one month and the interpretation of the expression of a 'month’ as has been done by the respondents so as to mean it British Calendar month is unjust, unfair, arbitrary and in violation of the statutory provisions.

ii. Without considering the aforesaid reply/objection, the appellants have ordered that if the validity of the temporary registration issued by the respondent/petitioner falls in the following month then the respondent/petitioner is under obligation to pay the relevant tax for two months from the date when the company was authorized to issue such temporary registration i.e. from the year 2012. Again, the petitioner submitted the reply and thereafter approached this Court by way of the writ petition.

3. The appellants/ State filed the reply to the writ petition justifying its action.

4. Vide order dated 20.12.2018 the writ Court after considering the (i) provisions of section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988, (ii)section 3 of the M.P. Motoryaan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, (iii) provisions of the M.P. General Clauses Act and (iv)the definitions of a 'calendar month’ given in the Webster dictionary and Oxford dictionary, came to the conclusion that the period of one month commences from the day subsequent to the 1st day of the month and would mean the period commences to that day and till the corresponding date in the succeeding month and accordingly set aside the impugned order dated 14.9.2016 and communication dated 13.2.2018.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the appellants have filed this writ appeal on the grounds that under section 43 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 the word ‘month’ is used by the parliament and as per the definition of ‘the month’ in the rule 2 (e) of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Rules 1991 the validity of temporary registration issued by the prescribed authority is only for a month meaning the same cannot be extended for the next succeeded month. The learned single judge has wrongly held that the expression ‘ a month’ as