Telangana High Court

Mtandt Rentals Ltd., Hyd. vs Prl. Secy., Transport Dept. And 5 Ors. 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

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

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

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

(2009) 9 SCC 489

AIR 1963 SC 786

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.

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.