P.N. Deshmukh JUDGMENT
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. Heard Shri Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Palshikar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. By this petition, the petitioner - a manufacturing company questions the impugned notice dated 18.10.2003 and order 24.11.2003, calling upon it to register a BH-35 Rear Dumper Truck and a Hindusthan 2021 Loader, as the same stand covered as Construction Equipment vehicle as defined under Rule 2(ca) of The Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. It is the specific contention of the petitioner that these vehicles do not have any 'on highway' capacity and are designed only for 'off highway' operations.
3. This Court had issued notice in the matter on 04.12.2003 and thereafter on 24.06.2004 while issuing Rule, granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C). Thus, operation and effect of above mentioned notice & order has been stayed.
4. Shri Naik, learned counsel, in this background, after taking us through the impugned notice dated 18.10.2003 submits that it was replied on 18.11.2003 with a specific defence that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 3583 of 2002 delivered on 16.09.2003 in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (now reported at MANU/MH/0802/2003 : 2004 (1) Mh. L.J. 883) does not have any application because there 'on highway' use of subject vehicle was not in dispute. It was specifically pleaded that the machinery with the petitioner is not adopted for use upon road and is designed only for use in mines. In view of this dispute on facts, the petitioner also sought an opportunity of personal hearing.
5. The facts were reiterated in later representation dated 24.11.2003 and in this representation, attention of authorities was invited to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Larger Bench) in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited & Ors. vs. State of Orissa & Ors., delivered on 03.04.2002, where the Hon'ble Apex Court has found the opportunity to lead the evidence in such matters necessary. In spite of this, on 24.11.2003, the order came to be passed and the petitioner has been threatened with coercive action, if vehicles were not produced for registration. He has taken us through the relevant legal provisions and invited our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., reported at MANU/SC/0487/1997 : AIR 1997 SC 2038, particularly paragraphs 8 to 10, and the later judgment reported at Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Santosh & Ors., MANU/SC/0510/2013 : (2013) 7 SCC 94.
6. Shri Palshikar, learned AGP has relied upon the facts disclosed in the notice dated 18.10.2003 as also in the order dated 24.11.2003. Our attention is invited to reply affidavit to urge that the vehicles with the petitioner qualify as construction equipment vehicle as defined under Rule 2(ca) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 1989 Rules). The assistance is also taken from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Western Coalfields Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (supra). It is contended that in view of this clear position, demand of hearing or of an opportunity to lead evidence is unwarranted and the petition should be dismissed with costs.
7. During arguments, our attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 2(28) defining Motor Vehicle, Section