D.P. Gupta, J.
1. The short question, which arises in this writ petition is as to whether the dumpers used by the Udaipur Cement Works, which constitutes a division of the Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), is taxable as 'motor vehicles' under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. A Similar question has been decided by me in the case of Birla Jute . v. The Regional Transport Officer & Taxation Officer & Anr. 1980 WLN (UC) 375, and it was held that the dumpers cannot be considered as 'motor vehicles' for the purposes of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and are not liable to imposition of tax under the said Act, so long as they are used solely within the premises of the petitioner. The aforesaid decision squarely governs this case as wel.
2. The case of the petitioner is that four dumpers are used by the Company for the purpose of collection and transportation of stone and other raw materials from the quarry to the crushing plant. The Regional Transport Officer thought it unnecessary to determine whether the vehicles are used exclusively on the premises of the Company or they also travel over public roads and left the same undecided because in his view ever if dumpers were used in the enclosed premises they came within the definition of 'motor pointed out that in Birla Jute . v. State of Orissa : [1975]2SCR138 .
3. Of course, the view taken by the Regional Transport Officer that the amended definition of the expression 'motor vehicles,' as given in Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, is applicable to the Taxation Act is untenable in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores Ltd.'s case : [1975]2SCR138 .
4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that an appeal preferred by the petitioner in this matter is still pending before the Director of Transport Rajasthan, Jaipur and the question as to whether the petitioner is using the dumpers solely within its premises will be considered by the Director, since it was left open by the Regional Transport Officer. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he filed an appeal before the Director long back yet the same has not been decided so far, although his stay application was dismissed by the Director on the ground that he had no power of staying the recovery of tax and penalty imposed by the Regional Transport Officer. In these circumstances, the petitioner had filed this writ petition in this Court. I, therefore, consider it proper to give a direction to the Director of Transport to decide the appeal of the petitioner pending before him without unavoidable delay.
5. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the Director of Transport, Rajasthan, respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the appeal of the petitioner pending before him, within a period of three months, keeping in view the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bolani Ores Ltd.'s case : [1975]2SCR138 and the decision of this Court in Birla Jute Manufacturing Co.'s case 1980 WLN (UC) 375.
6. The Bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, in accordance with the slay order passed by this Court on March 21, 1974 is discharged. However, the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority regarding recovery of tax and penalty from the petitioner should not be enforced until the decision of the petitioner's appeal by the Director of Transport, Rajasthan.
7. The parties are left to bear their own costs of these proceedings.