THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.NO.5049 OF 2011 Dt: 01-03-2011 Between: M/s. Gangavaram Port Limited, A company incorporated Under the Companies Act, 1956, having its regd. Office at Plot No.62, Hansa Crest, Road No.1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad Rep. by A.M. (Legal) Md. Abdul Ali. …..Petitioner And Government of A.P., Transport, Roads & Buildings Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others. …..Respondents THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5049 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a Private Limited Company and has established a port on the coast of Arabean Sea. It has acquired machinery of different descriptions. One of it, is Mobile Harbour Crane. It is stated that the crane is fixed almost at a particular place and it is operated to lift loading and unloading cargo and other materials from the ships. The subordinates of Transport Commissioner, Visakhapatnam inspected various equipments owned by the petitioner and formed an opinion that the mobile harbour crane is covered by the definition of “construction equipment” as defined under Rule 2 (ca) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short, the Rules). A memo to this effect was issued by the Vigilance and Enforcement Wing of the office of the 3rd respondent, on 15.11.2010. The petitioner submitted representation, dated 17.1.2011, stating that the crane cannot be treated as “construction equipment” vehicle and that at any rate, it stands exempted under the explanation to the definition. Not satisfied with that, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 18.1.2011, requesting the petitioner to produce the documents pertaining to the vehicle, within 7 days for the purpose of levying life tax and registering the vehicle. The petitioner challenges the same. Sri A.Satya Prasad, learned senior Counsel submits that the view taken by the 3rd respondent as to the categorisation of crane is contrary to the specific provisions of law. He contends that it was not even mentioned by the 3rd respondent that the crane is propelled mechanically or that it is put to use in the manner mentioned in the definition. He contends that the explanation to Rule 2 (ca) of the Rules exempts even the vehicles, which are used as off- highway construction equipments designed and adopted for use in any enclosed premises and not equipped to travel on public roads, on their own power. With the above contentions, the learned senior Counsel submits that the impugned proceedings are untenable in law. The learned Government Pleader for Transport, on the other hand, submits that the objections raised by the petitioner as to the description of the crane and its characteristics were already taken into account and it is liable to be levied the life tax and brought under purview of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ‘the Act’) and Rules. It is appears that the crane which is owned by the petitioner is somewhat unique, as to its make and utility and that there was no occasion for the respondents to deal with the equipment of similar nature in the context of making it liable to be registered and levy of tax. It is no doubt true that on receipt of a letter, dated 15.11.2010, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation. The 3rd respondent did not advert to the same in detail. Once the equipment is brought under the purview of the Act and Rules, it would bring about perennial liability and would create precedent vis-à-vis the similar equipment held by other agencies also. The petitioner had submitted a detailed representation on 7.2.2011 to the Commissioner of Transport, Hyderabad, i.e., the 2nd respondent herein. Being the head of Department, the 2nd respondent would be in a better position to decide the issue in a better and comprehensive manner. Further, the decision taken by him would have a bearing upon identical vehicles/equipment in the entire State. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to examine the representation dated 7.2.2011, submitted by the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the impugned order, dated 11.1.2011, shall remain in abeyance. The future course would depend upon the nature of orders that may be passed by the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Dt: 01.03.2011 Tjmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.5049 of 2011 DATE: 01.03.2011