1969 (3) TMI 105 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
2. Definition and applicability of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(18) of the Act.
3. The exemption criteria for vehicles used in enclosed premises.
4. Interpretation of the term "adapted for use upon roads."
5. Relevance of the vehicle's purpose and manufacturer's intention in determining registration requirements.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Registration under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The petitioner challenged a communication from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) requiring the registration of Diesel Mogurt Dumpers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari to quash this communication and prevent the RTO from insisting on the registration of the Dumpers.

2. Definition and Applicability of "Motor Vehicle" under Section 2(18) of the Act:
The court examined the definition of "motor vehicle" under Section 2(18) of the Act, which includes any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads but excludes vehicles adapted for use only in a factory or enclosed premises. The court noted that the exemption applies only to vehicles incapable of being used elsewhere as a goods vehicle, omnibus, stage carriage, or cab.

3. The Exemption Criteria for Vehicles Used in Enclosed Premises:
The petitioner argued that the Dumpers were used exclusively within a well-defined mining area and should be exempt from registration under the Act. However, the court found that the mining area was not enclosed by a fence or trench, as required for the exemption. The court emphasized that the exemption is limited to vehicles designed and manufactured for use only in a factory or enclosed premises.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Adapted for Use upon Roads":
The court considered whether the Dumpers, capable of carrying loads outside the mining area, fell within the definition of a "motor vehicle." The court referred to a decision in Bolain Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which clarified that if a vehicle is reasonably suitable for use on public roads, it must be registered under the Act. The court concluded that the Dumpers could be used outside the mining area like any other goods vehicle, thus requiring registration.

5. Relevance of the Vehicle's Purpose and Manufacturer's Intention in Determining Registration Requirements:
The petitioner contended that the vehicle's purpose and the manufacturer's intention should be considered. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the statutory exemption under Section 2(18) of the Act does not depend on the vehicle's intended use but on its capability for use only in a factory or enclosed premises. The court distinguished the case from the decision in Daley v. Hargreaves, which was based on specific statutory provisions in the United Kingdom.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Dumpers in question did not qualify for the exemption under Section 2(18) of the Act and were required to be registered. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.