Telangana High Court
Mtandt Rentals Ltd vs State Of ... on 30 October, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.6949, 6951, 6954, 6982, 7012 and
7056 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreenivas Rao) In all these Writ Petitions, the petitioners have questioned the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 dated 19.02.2015 in treating their Articulating Boom Lift Machine as motor vehicle instead of treating the same as "Machine" as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
2. Heard Sri C.L.N.Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Vigneswar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Transport appearing for respondents in all the writ petitions.
3. Brief facts of case:
3.1 The petitioners Companies were established and are engaged in providing safe and reliable industrial and construction equipment and supplies and renting of machinery for Aerial work Platforms, Material Handling Equipments etc. The petitioners also imported certain machines from foreign countries like France and Australia.
The MANITOU make Diesel operated Articulating Boom Lift of 180 ATJ model with different serial No. 928935, ii) 2005 JLG 60H 4 x 4 2 Articulated Boom Lift with Sl.No.0300016372, iii) 200 ATJ model with Sl.No.592275, iv) 180 AJJ Model with Sl.No.929411, v) 2002 JLG 600 AJ with Sl.No.0300086385 and vi) 660 SJ model with Sl.No.0300071351 and one such machine imported from France on 12.08.2013.
3.2 It is further averred that the Boom Lift Machine was working at the project site, the Motor Vehicle Inspector visited the spot, inspected and seized the vehicles/Machines of the petitioners and issued vehicle check report stating that petitioners have to pay life tax and registration charges.
3.3 It is further averred that the State Transport Authorities have treated the equipments of the petitioners as motor vehicles instead of treating the same as machines. Questioning the same, the petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos.3024, 3033, 3038, 3039, 3046 and 3050 of 2015 and the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh disposed of the said writ petitions by way of common order dated 12.02.2015 directing the respondent No.2 to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass speaking orders within a period of seven days.
3.4 It is further averred that the petitioners filed representation on 16.02.2015 and respondent No.2 without giving opportunity of 3 hearing and without furnishing the report submitted by Automobile Research Association of India (ARAI), Pune and report submitted by the expert committee dated 19.02.2015 passed the impugned orders. Questioning the same, petitioners filed the instant writ petitions. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No.2 without furnishing the reports submitted by the expert committee dated 16.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 and also without giving opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order dated 19.02.2015 and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the earlier order dated 12.02.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.3024 of 2015 and batch.
Submission of the learned Government Pleader:
5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader submits that respondent No.2 will consider the objections raised by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioners and requested this Court to grant reasonable time.
Analysis:
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on 4 record, it reveals that the petitioners have questioned the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.2 dated 19.02.2015 on the sole ground that respondent No.2 without furnishing the reports submitted by the expert committee dated 16.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 and also without giving opportunity of hearing passed the impugned order.
7. It is settled principles of law that the decision by the quasi-
judicial authority while passing the orders ought to have given opportunity to the party and pass orders by giving reasons.
8. In the case on hand, respondent No.2 even without furnishing the report submitted by the expert committee dated 16.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 and without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners passed the impugned order and the same is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. In Allwyn Housing Colony Welfare Association vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held that, no adverse order should be passed against the party without hearing him.
10. In Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying upon the judgment in 1 (2009) 9 SCC 489 2 AIR 1963 SC 786 5 King v. London County Council [(1931) 2 KB 215, 243] held as follows:
"Wherever any body of persons (1) having legal authority (2) to determine questions affecting rights of subjects and (3) having the duty to act judicially (4) act in excess of their legal authority - a writ of certiorari may issue". It will be seen from the ingredients of judicial act that there must be a duty to act judicially. A tribunal, therefore, exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial act cannot decide against the rights of a party without giving him a hearing or an opportunity to represent his case in the manner known to law. If the provisions of a particular statute or rules made thereunder do not provide for it, principles of natural justice demand it. Any such order made without hearing the affected parties would be void. As a writ of certiorari will be granted to remove the record of proceedings of an inferior tribunal or authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial acts, ex hypothhesi it follows that the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction shall also act judicially in disposing of the proceedings before it."
11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated 19.02.2015 is set aside and directed the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioners including personal hearing, by furnishing the reports dated 16.02.2015 and 18.02.2015 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6
12. With the above direction, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ ALOK ARADHE, C J _______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J Date: 30.10.2024 pgp