D. Biswas, J.
1. The question to be answered in this petition is whether dumpers, a heavy earth moving vehicle ordinarily used for removing overburdens,, are vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'.
2. The petitioner has challenged the direction given by the District Transport Officer, Tinsukia requiring him to get their dumpers registered on payment of taxes and fees as per provisions of law. This direction was communicated by the letter dated 24.7.1996 which reads as follows :
'With reference to the above, I am to inform you that there is no provisions In the M.V. Rules to exempt registration of such type of vehicles.
You are therefore requested to get such type of vehicles registered immediately on payment of taxes and fees etc. failing which the vehicle will be seized as per provisions of law. Also you are requested to let the undersigned know the number of such type of vehicles you are having with you at present.
Sd/-
District Transport Officer, Tinsukia, Assam.'
3. The above direction of the District Transport Officer, Tinsukia has been challenged in this petition. The petitioner firm purchased two 'dumpers' having 25 MT capacity for the purpose of excavation and transportation of overburdens at Tekok and Tirap mines belonging to M/s North Eastern Coal Fields. The 'dumpers' are heavy earth moving equipment meant for removal of overburdens in mines and particularly, in open cast mines. These are of special type and
Odd dimensions adapted for use in the open cast mines only. The 'dumpers' not being roadworthy are transported from one place to another on board of big trailers attached to trucks. The two dumpers in question let out to M/s North Eastern Coal Fields were exclusively meant for removal of overburdens within the enclosed premises of the mining areas. According to the petitioner, the Dumpers cannot be treated as 'Motor Vehicles' or 'Vehicles' within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. As usual, the State Government filed no return in the instant case. Therefore, decision on the question raised has to be on the basis of argument advanced by Mr. B. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. P. Chaliha, learned State counsel and the judgments relied upon by them.
5. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel argued that the dumpers in question are in use only in the Tirap mines which is a protected place in a specified area and not in use in any public place including any other mine or on any public road either for carrying goods or passengers. According to Mr. Goswami, the dumpers in question being of special type cannot be brought within the fold of the definitions 'Motor Vehicle' or 'Vehicle' as available in Section 2(18) and, as such, the question of registration or payment of tax does not arise.
6. Mr. Goswami laid emphasis on tile words 'but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in factory or in any other enclosed premises'. According to the learned counsel, the vehicles which are of a special type adapted for use only in factories or in any other enclosed premises do not fall within the definition of Motor Vehicle. According to him, the dumpers ply only in enclosed area of the mine and these are not meant for use on public road and, as such, the respondents have no authority to direct registration of the same under Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and to levy any tax thereon. Mr. Goswami further elaborated that Entry 57 of List-II of Schedule VII of the Constitution empowers the State to impose, tax on-vehicles, whether mechanically propelled or not, suitable for use on roads. The dumpers, not being suitable for use on roads, shall remain exempt from the purview of taxation.
7. The above points were raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Central Coal Fields Ltd. v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 1992 SC 1371. The Supreme Court taking into consideration the provisions of Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as amended in 1956, held as follows :
'8. It would be appropriate now to mention that some
documentary material was sent to us by the appellants by means of an affidavit after we had reserved judgment. That material is suggestive of the fact that Dumpers in some States are granted permission to run on public roads at a speed not exceeding 16 Kms. Per hour and on bridges and culverts at a speed not exceeding 8 kms. per hour. From this it is suggested that they have a minimum weight and safe laden weight fixed on some principles. Pictures of various types of Dumpars have also been sent to us which indicate prominently one factor that these Dumpers run on tyres, in marked contrast to chain plates like carter pillers or military tanks. By the use of rubber tyres it is evident that they have been adapted for use on roads, which means they are suitable for being used on public roads. The mere fact they are required at places to run at a particular speed is not to detract from the position otherwise clear that they are adapted for use on roads. The very nature of these vehicles make it clear that they are not manufactured or adapted for use only in factories or enclosed premises. The mere fact that the Dumpers and Rockers as suggested are heavy and cannot move on the roads without damaging them, is not to say that they are not suitable for use on roads. The word 'adapted' in the provision was read as 'suitable' in. Bolani Ores case (AIR 1975 SC 17) by interpretation on the strength of the language in Entry 57, List II of the Constitution. Thus on that basis it was idle to contend on behalf of the appellants that Dumpers and Rockers were neither adaptable nor suitable for use on public loads. Thus on the fact situation, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in concluding that Dumpers and Rockers are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on roads and being motor vehicles per se, as held in Bolani Ores case, were liable to taxation on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads; the network of which, the State spreads, maintains it and keeps available for use of motor vehicles and hence entitled to a regulatory and compensatory tax. (Exemptions claimable apart). The appellants, therefore, in our view, have no case for grant of any relief in these appeals.'
8. The above decision was followed in Union of India v. Chowgule & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1993 SC 1376. The observation of the Supreme Court in para~6 is quoted below ;
'6. ..... The mere fact that dumpers were used solely on the
premises of the owner, or that they were in closed premises, or permission of the Authorities was needed to move them from one place to another, or that they are not intended to be used or are incapable of being used for general purposes, or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their
weight and size, is of no consequence for dumpers are vehicles used for transport of goods and thus liable to pay a compensatory tax for the availability of roads for them to run upon commission.'
9. The dumpers we are concerned with are not different from the dumpers dealt with in the above two judgments. The documents annexed with the writ petition indicate that the dumpers run on tyres and not exclusively on chain plates like cater pillers or military tanks. The use of rubber tyres suggest that they have been adapted for use on roads as well. The certificates that these are exclusively in use in confined area make no difference. The above two decisions squarely apply in the instant case also.
10. In the context of the Assam Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1936, as it was prior to amendment in 2002, it can be concluded that dumpers were not specifically subjected to registration and load tax. By the amendment made in 2002, the dumpers have been subjected to road tax. The amended provision provides that 1.5% of the cost of chassis/vehicle has to be paid as road tax in respect of dumpers and other vehicles of similar type. There is no dispute at the bar that the dumpers were not specifically covered by the provisions of the Act of 1936 prior to the amendment. The District Transport Officer, Tinsukia issued the direction for registration on payment of tax on 12.7.1996, long before the amendment. This alone shows that the Transport Officer acted beyond his jurisdiction in issuing the direction at that point of time. By the amendment of 2002, statutory obligation has been cast on the owners of dumpers to pay road tax at the rate of 1.5% of the cost of the chassis/vehicle. Every owner of dumpers shall, therefore, has to discharge his statutory obligation with regard to registration and payment of road tax. There is no escape from this liability. The Act received the assent of the Governor on 1st of May, 2002, and on and from that day road tax as specified has to be paid. Substitution of the Schedule by the amending Act of 2002 is suggestive of the fact that there was no legislative intent to compel registration and levy tax on dumpers and vehicles of similar type prior to the amendment of 2002.
11. Consequent upon the above discussion, this petition is disposed of with the observation that the direction given by the District Transport Officer, Tinsukia for registration of dumpers on payment of taxes by the petitioner firm shall be effective from the 1st day of May, 2002.
12. No costs.