RAJESH BALIA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant who was learned Counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in respect of certain remarks made against him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has made reference to the following remarks made against the appellant in the order dated 7.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ambika Crushers v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2311 of 1999 and 37 other writ petitions: At this stage, I must also state that I have also noticed the practice adopted by learned Counsel Shri B.L. Maheshwari, who is a very senior advocate and also remained president of this Bar for about three terms in the past, to get the order of notice and stay and see to it that any how the hearing of such cases are delayed. I am at pains to note that at times Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, who is fairly senior and responsible advocate, failed to discharge his duties to the Court as well as to his opponents. Coming to the merits of the case, all the learned Counsel Shri Charan, Shri Maheshwari and Shri L.M. Lodha for the petitioners made almost same and similar arguments. Mr. Charan and Mr. Lodha were precise in their arguments, but Mr. Maheshwari even read and repeated definitions after definitions and the provisions of the Act having no relevance and, thereby, consumed the whole day of the Court and because of that number of other really urgent cases listed on the board for admission could not be taken up by this Court. It is, therefore, high time that this Court should also follow the practice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by directing the counsel to supply synopsis of the matter as well as the legal submissions with the authorities on which they are relying and also restrict unnecessary lengthy arguments of counsel. Before parting, I must state that learned Counsel Shri B.L. Maheshwari, who is a very senior advocate and past president of this Bar for about three terms consumed almost whole day of the Court by making relevant and irrelevant submission and simply reading definitions and Sections of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules, and thereby, prevented the Court from taking up number of cases for urgent admission.
(2.) FROM the totality of the circumstances of the case, it appears that after the learned Judge made up his mind, since the appellant who was counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge insisted for continuous hearing for submitting arguments, which in the opinion of the learned Single Judge were irrelevant and, therefore, these remarks were passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Central Coal Fields v. State of Orissa A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1317 and Union of India v. Chowgule and Co. : [1992]2SCR992 . In Central Coal Fields case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that Dumpers and Rockers run on rubber tyres are vehicles adapted or suitable for use on rods and being motor vehicles per se are liable to taxable (taxation) on the footing of their use or kept for use on public roads.
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that following the above decisions, another Single Bench of this Court decided a group of cases relating to Dumpers and Rockers by holding that they as such are motor vehicles and are liable to taxation. However, on appeal, the said decision of the learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench by holding that it is a matter of enquiry in each case, if an objection is raised by the tax payer about the nature of the machine in question to be taxed that objection has to be decided by the Taxing Officer in accordance with the law, the principles about which were laid in that decision. The decision of the Court was rendered in Birla Cement Works and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149 of 2000 decided on 24.2.2000.;