Bombay High Court
Rajdhar Renkuba Thale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 October, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 WP 6003 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.6003 of 2016
* Rajdhar s/o Renkuba Thale,
Age 50 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. Plot No.2, Sainagar,
Opposite to D.K.M.M. College,
New Pahadsingpura,
Aurangabad. .. Petitioner.
Versus
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Transport and Excise,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Commissioner or Transportation,
Administrative Building, 4th Floor,
Government Colony Wandre (East)
Mumbai.
3) The Regional Transport Officer,
Aurangabad. .. Respondents.
--------
Shri. A.A. Shelke, Advocate, holding for Shri. Prashant D.
Suryawanshi, Advocate, for petitioner.
Shri. S.N. Kendre, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
----------
CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATE : 15 OCTOBER 2016
::: Uploaded on - 18/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 19/10/2016 00:42:31 :::
2 WP 6003 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
both sides by consent for final disposal.
2) The petition is filed to challenge the order
made in Appeal No.16/2016 by respondent No.2.
3) The petitioner had filed application in the office
of the R.T.O. Aurangabad for registering his vehicle viz.
Maruti Alto K 10 (VXI) as vehicle of handicapped person
as he wanted to get exemption from the payment of
excise duty, as he wanted to take benefit of one
Government Resolution issued in that regard. He had filed
record like disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board showing that he is handicapped as his left lower
limb is affected due to Post Polio Residual Paralysis. This
disability is permanent in nature and there is no likelihood
of improvement in the condition as per the certificate.
Another certificate which is issued by Government
Medical College and Hospital Aurangabad to the same
effect was produced and extent of the disability is said to
be 56%. The certificate obtained from Maruti Suzuki
Company was also produced which is to the effect that the
3 WP 6003 of 2016
aforesaid vehicle suits the disability of the petitioner and
he is unlikely to have any problem in driving this vehicle.
Affidavit was also filed in support of his contention by the
petitioner. He had applied to the Department of Heavy
Industry and on the basis of notification of the Central
Government No.12/2012-Central Excise dated 17-3-2012,
certificate is issued that the petitioner is in a position to
drive the vehicle of aforesaid make which is having
automatic transmission (AMT). This certificate is issued to
enable him to avail the excise duty concession given in the
aforesaid Central Government notification.
4) The R.T.O. Officer rejected the claim by holding
that such registration is possible only in respect of invalid
carriage defined in section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act
1988. It appears that the officer rejected the claim by
holding that the aforesaid vehicle was not specially
designed and constructed and it was sold as automatic
transmission vehicle. The appellate authority endorsed
this view given by the R.T.O. Officer.
5) In addition to aforesaid notification of the year
2002, there is one circular bearing No.640/31/2002-CX
4 WP 6003 of 2016
issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs. Clauses
4 and 5 of the Circular are as under :-
"(4) Since auto-transmission is one of the special
devices required by person, with left leg disability, the
Ministry of Industry has been issuing appropriate
certificates in respect of auto-transmission motor
vehicles for extending concessional rate of duty to
such handicapped persons. The concession will
obviously not be available to all automatic
transmission vehicles, but in respect of those vehicles
which are bought by physically handicapped persons
and who produce necessary certificate from Ministry
of Industry.
(5) In view of the above, it is clarified that the
concession should not be denied in respect of any
motor vehicle with special features (like auto
transmission) which is capable of being used by a
handicapped person and for which necessary
certificate from the Ministry of Industry is produced
in this regard."
6) The aforesaid Circular shows that if company
has started manufacturing the vehicles which are suitable
to handicapped person like the petitioner and he opts to
purchase such vehicle then in that case also the benefit of
the notification needs to be given to such person. It
appears that this Circular which is produced by the
petitioner, is not considered by the R.T.O. Officer and the
appellate authority. It is the policy of the Government to
see that such handicapped persons get some concession if
5 WP 6003 of 2016
vehicles are specially designed and constructed to make
them suitable for such persons. In the course of time, due
to advancement in the technology, due to which AMT
vehicles came to be manufactured, persons like present
petitioner can use such vehicles and for that a vehicle is
now not required to be specially designed and
constructed. Considering the disability of the present
petitioner he may not be in a position to use his left limb
for driving such vehicle. In view of these circumstances
this Court holds that the decisions given by the appellate
authority and the R.T.O. officer cannot sustain in law.
7) In the result, the petition is allowed. The orders
made by the R.T.O. Officer and the appellate authority are
quashed and set aside. Direction is given to give the
benefit to the petitioner of the relevant notifications
within two months from today. Rule made absolute in the
aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(T.V. NALAWADE, J. )
rsl
