C. Aswartha Narayana Reddy vs Transport Commissioner and Another

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—Petitioner challenges the memo dated 18-1-2007, issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kadapa, the 2nd respondent herein.

The petitioner purchased a tractor and got it registered with the 2nd respondent, on 16-11-2006. It was assigned the registration mark of A.P. 04-L-4995. Subsequently, he purchased a Tractor Driven Harvester, from the same manufacturer, and submitted on application on 6-1-2007 before the 2nd respondent, to make necessary entries in the registration certificate. It is stated that the Transport Commissioner had approved the motor and specification of the harvester, through his proceedings dated 23-9-2006. The tractor and the harvester were produced before the 2nd respondent, on 8-1-2007, for necessary inspection. Through the impugned order, the 2nd respondent rejected the application, stating that there is no provision to convert the tractor into tractor driven harvester. Petitioner contends that the harvester is nothing, but an agricultural implement, and the question of effecting any alteration to the tractor, does not arise. Placing reliance upon the instructions issued by the 1st respondent, through memo dated 28-12-2006, he contended that the impugned memo is contrary to the same.

The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. He states that the tractor purchased by the petitioner was registered in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act arid the Rules made thereunder. It is pointed out that the tractor driven combined harvester is an altogether different entity, and it requires separate registration, it is urged that, acceding to the request of the petitioner would result in alteration of an already registered vehicle. He has enclosed the necessary material, to point out the difference.

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Transport.

The tractor purchased by the petitioner manufactured by M/s. Ex John Deer 5310 Tractors; was already registered. By itself, the tractor would not be much of help, to any farmer. A tractor''s utility is derived only through different implements, which are driven by it. Just as there exist implements, for ploughing the land; spraying the pesticides, and puddling the wet lands; an implement to harvest the crop is available. It is designed by the manufacturer of the tractor itself. It is not propelled through any machine. The implement is designed in such a way, that it is driven through the same tractor, whenever it is to be operated. Soon after the work, the harvester has to be detached, and the tractor would be put to use, as usual.

The question, as to whether the tractor driven combined harvester, requires separate registration, or it would suffice, if necessary entries are made in the registration certificate of the tractor; was examined by the 1st respondent. In his memo dated 28-12-2006, the 1st respondent observed as under:

The attention of all the Registering Authorities is invited to the reference cited. In pursuance of the meeting, held, the following software has been developed duly incorporating the modifications for registration of combined harvesters.

(1) In the column meant for type of vehicle, it should be clearly indicated as Agricultural Tractor Driven Combined Harvester.

(a) An entry is made as "Tractor Driven Combined Harvester" in vehicle masters screen of the data base available in the central server.

The other details, in this regard, are provided in the same memo. The request made by the petitioner, to cause necessary entries in the registration certificate of the tractor, after he purchased the harvester, was turned down by the 2nd respondent, on the ground that it would amount to conversion of the tractor into tractor driven harvester. Such a view cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. The fact, that the harvester is driven by the tractor, does not warrant any conversion, or alteration. The harvester is nothing, but an agricultural implement. Propelling it through the tractor, is the same, as the ploughing of land by the tractor with the help of an implement. When the 1st respondent gave general instructions for causing necessary entries, in relation to harvesters, the 2nd respondent is not justified in turning down the request of the petitioner.

Learned Government Pleader for Transport, submits that, use of the harvester is not restricted for harvesting the crop of the petitioner alone, and it is likely to be used on commercial lines. If that be so, necessary regulatory measures are to be made by the Government, after examining the various implications thereof. The fact that the vehicle, or its implement, is going to be utilized in a manner, contrary to the one, which is permitted; cannot constitute the basis, to refuse, to make necessary entries.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned memo dated 18-1-2007 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to take necessary action, strictly in accordance with the memo dated 28-12-2006, issued by the 1st respondent; on the application of the petitioner, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be no order as costs.