CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.versusSMT. SANTOSH & ORS.

                          [2013] 3 S.C.R. 720

A     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
                 CORPORATION & ORS.
                                   v.
                   SMT. SANTOSH & ORS.
        (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.3265 of 2012)
B
                            MAY 10, 2013.
         [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                   IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

C       CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

        Separation of powers - Issuance of directions by
   constitutional courts in case of legislative vacuum - HELD:
   So far as the legislation by court is concerned, as a corollary
0 to doctrine of separation of powers, a judge merely applies
   the law that it gets from legislature - He is simply not
   authorised to legislate - However, simply filling up an existing
   vacuum till legislature chooses to make appropriate laws,
   does not amount to taking over the functions of legislature -
E Supreme Court has insightfully identified Art. 32 as the
   constitutional provision that provides for enforcement of
   fundamental rights in areas of legislative vacuum - Not only
   has it held that fundamental rights are limitations upon the
   State power, but the right to constitutional remedies is itself a
  fundamental right enshrined in Art. 32 and in the case of an
F infringement of a fundamental right by State, an aggrieved
  party can approach the Court for a remedy - Issuance of
  guidelines and directions, in exercise of powers under Arts 32
  and 142, has become an integral part of our constitutional
  jurisprudence - Courts in India have not violated the
G mandatory constitutional requirement, rather they have only
  issued certain directions to meet the exigencies - Some of
  them are admittedly legislative in nature, but the same have
  been issued only to fill up the existing vacuum, till legislature

H                                720
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD ·    721
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
enacts a particular law to deal with the situation - In view of     A
the §ame, it is permissible to issue directions if the law does
not provide a solution of a problem, as an interim measure,
till proper law is enacted by legislature - The Court, therefore,
may a/so issue necessary directions as an interim measure,
if the need has so arisen -- Constitution of India, 1950 -- Arts.   B
32 and 142.

    MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:

     s. 2(44) and 2(28) - Motor vehicle - 'Tractor', 'Dumper' -
Hetd: Tractor is a motor vehicle in terms of definition u/ss        C
2(28) and 2(44) - Thus, tractor is a motor vehicle as defined
under the Act - Tractor which is used basically for agricultural
purpose and a dumper used in the factory premises, can
suitably be adapted for being used on the road, therefore, they
will meet the requirement of definition of motor vehicle u/s        D
2(28) - The word ·only' used in s. 2(28) clearly shows that the
exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles which
are exclusively being used in a factory or in any closed
premises - Thus, a vehicle which is not adapted for use upon
the road, is only to be excluded.                                   E
     s.2(28) - Motor vehicle - 'Jugaad' - Held: Within the
meaning of s.2(28), any vehicle which is mechanically
propelled and adapted for use on roads and does not fall
within the exceptions provided therein, is a motor vehicle - As     F
has been held by Allahabad High Court, 'Jugaad' is squarely
covered under the definition of motor vehicles as specified
uls 2(28), since it is mechanically propelled and adapted for
use on road and, · therefore, other relevant provisions of the
Act/rules are applicable - Therefore, statutory authorities         G
cannot escape from their duty to enforce the law and restrain
the plying of 'Jugaad' - They must ensure that 'Jugaad' can
be plied only after meeting the requirements of the Act - The
same has become a menace to public safety as they are
causing a very large number of accidents - 'Jugaads"·i:ire not
                                                                    H
    722      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013) 3 S.C.R.

A insured and the owners of the 'Jugaad' generally do not have
  the financial capacity to pay compensation to persons who
  suffer disablement and to dependents of those who lose life -
  Thus, considering the gravity of the circumstances, statutory
  authorities must give strict adherence to the circular - However,
B it is clarified that it is open to the statutory authorities to make
  exemptions by issuing a notification/circular specifically if such
  a vehicle is exclusively used for agricultural purposes but for
  that sufficient specifications have to be provided so that it
  cannot be used for commercial purposes - Government of
c India (Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways)
  Circular dated 26. 7.2007, clarifying that 'Jugaad' is a vehicle
  u/s 2(28).

         M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2006 (7)
    Suppl. SCR 336 = AIR 2007 SC 71; State of U.P. & Ors. v.
D   Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., 2007 (7) SCR 705 = (2007) 6 SCC 586;
    Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors. 2011 (15) SCR 1092 =
    (2012) 1 SCC 333; Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan &
    Ors., 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 = AIR 1997 SC 3011; Vineet
    Narain v. Union of India, 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 = AIR
E   1998 SC 889, L.K. Pandey v. Union of India & Anr., 1985
    Suppl. SCR 71 =AIR 1986 SC 272; D.K. Basu v. State of
    West Bengal, 1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 =AIR 1997 SC
    610; Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 1739;
    Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, 1998 (2)
F   SCR 795 = AIR 1998 SC 1895; and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar
    v. Rajesh Ranjan, AIR 2005 SC 972; M.K. Kunhimohammed
    v. P.A. Ahmedkutty & Ors., 1987 (3) SCR 1149 =AIR 1987
    SC 2158; Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Kamataka &
    Ors., 2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1100 = AIR 2005 SC 3428;
G   Kishun Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Tax No. 573 of 2011
    - referred to
                          Case Law Reference:
          2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336        referred to      para 14
H
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN ,STAT,E ROAD    723
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.

    2007 (7) SCR 705               referred to     para 14       A
    2011 (15) SCR 1092             referred to     para 14
    1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 404 referred to            para 14
    1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 referred to            para 14       8
    1985 Suppl. SCR 71             referred to     para 14
    1996 (10) Suppl. SCR 284 referred to           para 14
    AIR 1997 SC 1739               referred to     para 14
                                                                 c
    1998 (2) SCR 795               referred to     para 14
    AIR 2005 SC 972                referred to     para 14
     1987 (3) SCR 1149             referred to     para 14
    2005 (2) Suppl. SCR 1100 referred to           para 14       D

    Writ Tax No. 573 of 2011       referred to     para 14
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 3265 of 2012.
                                                                 E
    From the Judgment and order dated 21/09/2011 in
SBC MA No.480/2001 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.

    A. Mariarputham, AG, Siddharth Luthra, ASG, S.C.
Maheswari, S.K. Dubey, Manish Singhvi, Manjit Singh,             F
Suryanarayan Singh, AAGs lmtiaz Ahmed, Naghma lmtiaz (for
Equity Lex Associates), Satya Siddiqui, Supriya Juneja, S.K.
Mishra, Aditya Siagla, V.K. Biju, D.S. Mahra, Divena Saighal,
Mohan Prasad Gupta, Navjyoti Neelam, Vipul Maheshwari,
Ashish Mittal, lrshad Ahmad, Tarjit Singh, Anil Antil, Vartika   G
Sahay Walia, Corporate Law Group, A. Subhashini, Gopal
Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, Chandan Kumar, Mishra Saurav,
Yogesh Tiwari, Pragati Neekhra, Hemantika Wahi, K.N.
Madhusoodhanan, T.G. Narayanan Nair, Aruna Mathur, Movita,
Yusuf Khan, Arputham, Aruna & Co., Sanjay V. Kharde, Asha
Gopalan Nair, Vinay Garg, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle,         H
    724      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A Ranjan Mukherjee, S.C. Ghosh, S. Bhowmick, R.P. Yadav,
  Jayesh Gaurav, Mohd. Waquar, Tapesh Kumar Singh, Prabu
  Ramasubramanian, B.S. Banthia, Ramesh Babu M.R.
  Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, B.V.
  Balaram Das, Bikas Kargupta, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Sarbani
B Kar, Abhijit Sengupta, Vikas Sharma, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
  Bina Madhavan, Jagjit Singh Chhabra, Anitha Shenoy, S.
  Chandra Shekhar, Vishwa Pal Singh, Shibashish Misra,
  Suvinay K. Dash, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Balaji Srinivasan,
  Abhishek Atrey, Ashutosh Sharma, Brijesh Panchal, Aishwarya
c Shandilya, Babita Tyagi, G.N. Reddy, B. Debojit, K. Enatoli
  Serna, Amit Kumar Singh, Samir Ali Khan, Aviral Saxena, Rohit
  Kumar Singh, Sunil Fernandes, lsha, Aand., Astha Sharma,
  Kunal Verma, B. Balaji, T. Mouli Mahendran, R. Rakesh Sharma
  for the appearing parties.
D         The following order of the Court was delivered by
                                ORDER

        1. Originally this petition had been filed challenging the
E judgment and order of the Rajasthan High Court dated
  21.9.2011 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 480 of 2001,
  wherein the complete liability of providing compensation in a
  vehicular accident had been fixed upon the appellant-Rajasthan
  State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as
F the 'RSRTC'), while unfastening the liability of the driver and the
  owner of the vehicle, known as 'Jugaad', under the provisions
  of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the
  'Act').
       2. At the time of hearing the petition, this court vide order
G dated 6.2.2012 did not consider it proper to examine the issue
  in respect of co111pensation. However, the question was raised
  by Shri lmtiaz Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the
  RSRTC that this court must examine whether 'Jugaad' is a
  vehicle under the Act, and in case, it is a motor vehicle under
H Section 2(28) of the Act, whether such 'Jugaad' is required to
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD                           725
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
be insured and registered before it is permitted to ply on the        A
road and whether the driver of 'Jugaad' must compulsorily have
a driving licence. As such important issues have been raised
by Shri lmtiaz Ahmed, we had requested Shri H.P. Raval,
learned ASG to assist the court, after taking instructions from
the Road Transport Ministry of the Central Government about           B
the status of 'Jugaad' under the Act. Shri Raval responded to
the aforesaid queries on 13.4.2012 and submitted that it is a
motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(28) of the Act, and
the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways had
issued a circular dated 26.7.2007 issuing instructions to all         c
State transport authorities clarifying that 'Jugaad' is a vehicle
under Section 2(28) of the Act and all the States are under a
legal obligation to enforce the same. Therefore, no person
should be permitted to ply a 'Jugaad' as it violates all the
provisions of the Act. It must have a registration and insurance
                                                                      0
and the driver must have a valid driving license and in case of
an accident etc, the liability under the provisions of the Act, may
be properly determined. However, Shri Raval has raised a
grievance that in spite of issuance of such a circular, most of
the States have not enforced the terms of the said circular
issued by the Central Government.                                     E

     3. Considering the aforesaid grievance raised by Shri
Raval, this court impleaded the Transport Secretary/
Commissioner of all the States as party respondents and
asked them to submit their response. While some of the States         F
have submitted that it is not a vehicle within the meaning of the
provisions of Section 2(28) of the Act. The State of Karnataka
has submitted the vehicle like 'Jugaad' was not in existence in
the State.
                                                                      G
      4. It has further beeri pointed out by learned counsel for
the parties that enforcement of the provisions of the Act and
the rules framed under it, come within the jurisdiction of the
State Governments. Therefore, they must be directed to ensure
strict compliance of the said provisions of the Act. It has also      H
    726      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A been pointed out by Shri Siddharth Luthra, learned ASG that a
  letter dated 19.7.2012 was sent by the Director (RT) of the
  Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India,
  to all the State Authorities to ensure compliance of the statutory
  provisions cf the Act and the rules.
B
        5. Shri Manish Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing
  for the State of Rajasthan has submitted that the government
  of Rajasthan has examined the matter and decided to prohibit
  the plying of "Jugaad" on the roads completely. Such a vehicle
  cannot be used for any commercial purpose, without being
C registered and duly insured and in compliance with the other
  statutory requirements. However, the State Government carved
  out an exception that farmers/poor villagers may be permitted
  to use the same for their agricultural purposes as an interim
  measure till the rules are framed in this regard. It has further
D been submitted that in case 'Jugaads' are found plying on the
  roads, they shall be impounded and will be dealt with strictly in
  accordance with law. A similar stand has been taken by the
  majority of the States.

E      6. An application has been filed by Rashtriya Kisan
  Morcha, for impleadmenVintervention which is allowed. The
  Morcha raised a grievance that in case plying of the 'Jugaad'
  is prohibited completely, it will create a serious problem for the
  farmers, as seizure/impounding of "Jugaad" would have µenal
F consequences. The 'Jugaad' is nothing, but an improved
  version of a bullock cart which has been used for centuries in
  the villages. The farmer communities should not be restrained
  from using the improved carts~ugaad in the villages to and from
  houses to the farms and for bringing the agricultural produces
G from their agricultural lands.
      7. Some of the lawyers have raised the issue that issuing
  any kind of direction by this Court in these regards would
  amount to legislation which is not permissible in law. Thus, they
  have suggested that instead of issuing the directions, the
H Central Government and the State authorities be directed to
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD      727
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
frame a policy, amend the rules specifically and enforce the        A
same. However, other lawyers have opposed this view and
submitted that the issue involved herein is restricted only with
enforcement of law and not with ;egislation. As the "Jugaad"
is a vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act.
                                                                    B
     8. We have considered the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

     So far as the legislation by the court is concerned, as a
corollary to the doctrine of separation of powers, a judge merely
applies the law that it gets from the legislature. Consequently,    C
the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition has insisted that the judge only
reflects the law regardless of the anticipated consequences,
considerations of fairness or public policy. He is simply not
authorised to legislate.
                                                                    D
   9. In kindred spirit, in M. Nagaraj & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors., AIR 2007 SC 71, Justice Kapadia, writing for the
Constitutional Bench, observed:

    "The Constitution is not an ephemeral legal document
    embodying a set of legal rules for the passing hour. It sets    E
    out principles for an expanding future and is intended to
    endure for ages to come and consequently to be adopted
    to the various crisis of human affairs .... A constitutional
    provision must be construed not in a narrow and
    constricted sense but in a wide and liberal manner so as        F
    to anticipate and take account of changing conditions and
    purposes so that a constitutional provision does not get
    fossilized but remains flexible enough to meet the newly
    emerging problems and challenges."
                                                                    G
     10. Accordingly, in State of U.P. & Ors. v. Jeet S. Bisht &
Anr., (2007) 6 sec 586, even though the matter was referred
to another Bench, owing to a split decision-Justice S.B. Sinha
aptly described the modern understanding of the separation of
powers thus:                                                        H
    728       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013) 3 S.C.R.

A         "Separation of power in one sense is a limit on active
          jurisdiction of each organ. But it has another deeper and
          more relevant purpose: to act as check and balance over
          the activities of other organs. Thereby the active jurisdiction
          of the organ is not challenged; nevertheless there are
B         methods of prodding to communicate the institution of its
          excesses and shortfall in duty.... Separation of power
          doctrine has been reinvented in modern times. . .. The
          modern view, which is today gathering momentum in
          Constitutional Courts world over, is not only to demarcate
c         the realm of functioning in a negative sense, but also to
          define the minimum content of the demarcated realm of
          functioning."

         11. In Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham & Ors., (2012) 1 SCC
  333, this Court doubted the competence of this Court to issue
D such directions, which were allegedly to be legislative in nature.
  Therefore, the matter was referred to a larger bench, and such
  larger bench held, that in exercise of the powers conferred upon
  it by Article 32 r/w Article 142 of the Constitution, the directions
  issued by this Court were valid and laudable, as the same had
E been made to fill the vacuum that existed in the absence of any
  legislation, to ensure that only genuine SC/ST and OBC
  candidates would be able to secure the benefits of certificates
  issued, and that bogus candidates would be kept out. Simply
  filling up an existing vacuum till the legislature chooses to make
F appropriate laws, does not amount to taking over the functions
  of the legislature.
        12. In its activist streak, this Court has also imparted new
  vigour to the process of constitutional interpretation. For
G instance, this Court has insightfully identified Article 32 as the
  constitutional provision that provides for the enforcement of
  fundamental rights in areas of legislative vacuum. Not only has
  it held that fundamental rights are limitations upon the State
  power, but the right to constitutional remedies is itself a
  fundamental rightenshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution, and
H
CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT 729
      CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
in the ca!Se of an infringement of a fundamental right by the       A
State, an aggrieved party can approach this Court for a remedy.

    13. In Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR
1997 SC 3011, this Court held:

    "In view of the above, and the absence of enacted law to        B
    provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human
    right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual
    harassment and abuse, more particularly against sexual
    harassment at work places, we lay down the guidelines and
    norms specified hereinafter for due observance at all           C
    workplaces or other institutions, until a legislation is
    enacted for the purpose. This is done in exercise of the
    power available under Article 32 of the Constitution for
    enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is further
    emphasised that this would be treated as the law declared       D
    by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution."

      14. Providing further reinforcement to the Article 32
jurisprudence, in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC
889, this Court noted that the issuance of guidelines and           E.
directions, in the ~xercise of the powers under Articles 32 and
142, has become an integral part of our constitutional
jurisprudence. It also pointed out that such an exercise of
powers was absolutely necessary to fill the void in areas with
legislative vacuum. In addition, the Court noted:
                                                                    F
    "As pointed out in Vishaka (supra), it is the duty of the
    executive to fill the vacuum by executive orders because
    its field is co-terminus with that the legislature, and where
    there is inaction even by the executive for whatever reason,
    the judiciary must step in, in exercise of its constitutional   G
    obligations under the aforesaid provisions to provide
    absolution till such time as the legislature acts to perform
    its role by enacting proper legislation to cover the field.

    On this basis, we now proceed to give the directions            H
    730        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A         enumerated hereafter for rigid compliance till such time as
          the legislature steps in to substitute them by proper
          legislation. These directions made under Article 32 read
          with Article 142 to implement the rule of law wherein the
          concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 is embedded,
B         have the force of law under Article 141 and by virtue of
          Article 144 it is the duty of all authorities, civil and judicial,
          in the territory of India to act in aid of this Court."

  (See also: L.K. Pandey v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1986 SC
C 272; D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610;
  Ramamurthy v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1997 SC 1739;
  Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, AIR 1998
  SC 1895; and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, AIR
  2005 SC 972).

D         15. Thus, the aforesaid cases clearly reveal that the courts
  in India have not violated the mandatory constitutional
  requirement, rather they have only issued certain directions to
  meet the exigencies. Some of them are admittedly legislative
  in nature, but the same have been issued only to fill up the
E existing vacuum, till the legislature enacts a particular law to
  deal with the situation. In view of the same, it is permissible to
  issue directions if the law does not provide a solution of a
  problem, as an interim measure, till the proper law is enacted
  by the legislature.
F      We may also issue necessary directions as an interim
    measure, if the need so arisen.

          16. The Act replaced the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in view
  of the changes in transport technology, pattern of passenger
G and freight movements, taking into consideration the road
  safety standards, pollution control measures, standards in
  transportation of hazardous and explosive materials.

      17. In M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty & Ors.,
H AIR 1987 SC 2158, this Court has made certain suggestions
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD      731
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
to raise the limit of compensation payable as a result of               A
vehicular accidents in respect of death and permanent
disablement in the event of their being no proof of fault on the
part of the person involved in the accident and also in hit and
run motor accidents. In this case, the court also suggested the
removal of certain disparities in the liability of the insurer to pay   B
compensation. The said recommendations/suggestions were
also taken into consideration and incorporated in the Act.

      18. The object of bringing and repealing the Act 1939 had
been to rationalise certain definitions with additions of certain       C
new definitions of new types of vehicles, strict procedures
relating to grant of driving licenses and period of validity thereof;
standards of anti-pollution control devices; provisions for
issuance of fitness certificates of vehicles and provision for
enhancing compensation in case of no fault liability and in hit
and run vehicular accidents and also maintenance of State               D
register for driving licenses and vehicles registration.

      19. Section 2(2) of the Act defines articulated vehicle which
means a motor vehicle to which a semi-trailer is attached;
Section 2(34) defines public place; Section 2(44) defines               E
'tractor' as a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry
any load; Section 2(46) defines 'trailer' which means any
vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or
intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.
                                                                        F
      Section 3 of the Act provides for necessity for driving
license; Section 5 provides for responsibility of owners of the
vehicle for contravention of Sections 3 and 4; Section 6
provides for restrictions on the holding of driving license;
Section 56 provides for compulsion for having certificate of
fitness for transport vehicles; Section 59 empowers the State           G
to fix the age limit of the vehicles; Section 66 provides for
necessity for permits to ply any vehicle for any commercial
purpose; Section 67 empowers the State to control road
transport; Section 112 provides for limits of speed; Sections
 133 ·and 134 imposes a duty on the owners and the drivers of           H
    732       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A the vehicles in case of accident and injury to a person; Section
  146 provides that no person shall use any vehicle at a public
  place unless the vehicle is insured. In addition thereto, the
  Motor Vehicle Taxation Act provides for imposition of
  passenger tax and road tax etc.
B
       20. Section 2(28) of the Act defines "Motor Vehicle" as
  under:

          "Motor Vehicle" or "vehicle" means any mechanically
          propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether
c         the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an
          external or internal source and includes a chassis to which
          a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not
          include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a
          vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a
0         factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle
          having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of
          not exceeding twenty five cubic centimeters."
          (Emphasis added)

E       Thus, any vehicle which is mechanically propelled and
    adapted for use upon roads and does not fall within the
    exceptions provided therein, is a Motor Vehicle within the
    meaning of Section 2(28) of the Act.
       21. In Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka &
F Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3428, this Court dealt with the issue while
  dealing with "Tractor" and held as under:

          "Under Section 61 of the 1988 Act, which comes within
          Chapter IV dealing with registration of motor vehicles,
G         registration of trailers is made compulsory. Under Section
          61(2), the registration mark assigned to a trailer is required
          to be displaced on the side of the drawing vehicle. In the
          present case, we are not concerned with tractors in the
          conventional sense. Even the legislature has used the word
          "drawing vehicle" in place of tractors. Under Section 61(3),
H
    CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD      733
TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
  it is provided that no person shall drive a motor vehicle to         A
  which a trailer is attached unless the registration mark of
  the motor vehicle is displayed on the trailer. Similarly,
  under Section 66 in Chapter V which refers to control of
  transport vehicles, no owner of a motor vehicle can use the
  vehicle as a transport vehicle carrying passengers or                8
  goods without a permit. Under Section 66(2), the holder
  of a goods carriage permit may use the vehicle for drawing
  any trailer. Therefore, under the M.V. Act, 1988, the
  Parliament has kept in mind the existence of a vehicle
  classifiable as "tractor-trailer'' ...
                                                                       c
          Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the
   words "motor vehicle". Although, a "trailer'' is separately
  .defined under Section 2(46) to mean any vehicle drawn
   or intended to be drawn by motor vehicle, it is still included
   into the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under              D
   Section 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor'' is defined in
   Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itself
   constructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor
   vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense
   by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words            E
   "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in
   mind that the Act has been enacted in order to keep
 . control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles etc. A
   combined reading of the definitions under Section 2, ....... .
   shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any           F
   mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads
   irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer.
   Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a motor
   vehicle, it by itself being a motor vehicle, the tractor- trailer
   would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14)             G
   and consequently, a "transport vehicle" under Section
   2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the
   vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from
   one place to another. When a vehicle is so altered or
   prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting               H
    734       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 3 S.C.R.


A         goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage
          of goods. Applying the above test, ....... the tractor-trailer
          ...... falls under Section 2(14) as a "goods carriage" and
          consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport
          vehicle" under Section 2(47) of the M.V. Act, 1988."
B      22. The Tractor is a machine run by diesel or petrol. It is a
  self-propelled vehicle for hauling other vehicles. It is used for
  different purposes. It is also used for agricultural purposes,
  along with other implements; such as harrows, ploughs, tillers,
  blade-terracers, seed-drills etc. It is a self-propelled vehicle
C capable of pulling alone as defined under the definition of Motor
  Vehicles. It does not fall within any of the exclusions as defined
  under the Act. Thus, it is a Motor Vehicle in terms of the
  definition under Section 2(28) of the Act, which definition has
  been adopted by the Act. So, even without referring to the
D definition of the Tractor, if the definition of the Motor Vehicle
  as given under the Act is strictly construed, even then the Tractor
  is a Motor Vehicle as defined under the Act. The Tractor is not
  only used for agricultural purposes but is also used for other
  purposes as stated above. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
E Tractor in its popular meaning is only used for agricultural
  purposes and, thus, is not a Motor Vehicle as defined under
  the Act. The Tractor is a Motor Vehicle is also proved by this
  definition under Section 2(44) of the Act. Different types of
  Motor Vehicles have been defined under the provisions of the
F Act, and the Tractor is one of them. Thus, considering the
  question from any angle, the Tractor is a Motor Vet:iicle as
  defined under the Act.
       23. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to
  hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which
G he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central
  Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various
  categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said
  Section. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines
  various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types
H
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD      735
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS.
mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are 'goods              A
carriage', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor
vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle',· 'maxi-cab',
'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle',
'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle',
'semi-trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport   B
vehicle'.
     24. The Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 573 of 2011-
Kishun Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors., held that 'Jugaad' was
squarely covered under the definition of motor vehicles as
specified under Section 2(28) of the Act, since it was                   C
mechanically propelled adapted for use on road and hence
other relevant provisions of the Act/rules were applicable. The
Court further directed that as the said vehicle did not comply
with the provisions of the Act/Rules, the seizure effected by the
U.P. authorities could not be interfered with by the court.              D
     25. Further, in Writ Petition No. 6611 (M/B) of 2005 -Avnish
Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors. decided on 23.2.2011, the
Allahabad High Court has issued directions to the statutory
authorities to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Act
and the rules, and to prevent the illegal plying of such vehicles,       E
the statutory Authorities must take effective measures in
conformity with the statutory rules.
     26. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State of
Haryana has submitted that even the Punjab and Haryana High
                                                                         F
Court while delivering the judgment as early as 29.3.1995 had
directed the State authorities to ensure that no 'Jugaad' shall
be permitted to ply in the State of Haryana under any
circumstance. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as
under:
                                                                         G
     "An interim direction is issued that no such Jugars shall
     be permitted to ply in the State of Haryana under any
     circumstance. All such Jugars being plied shall be seized
     by the concerned law enforcing agencies of the State.
     Since the aforesaid vehicles are being plied against the . H
    736       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 3 S.C.R.

A         provisions of law and these vehicles are not
          recognised under the Motor Vehicles Act, the same
          cannot be released in favour of a person, who is not even
          admitted to be the registered owner of such vehicle.
          Despite directions, we have not been intimated as to how
B         such unauthorised vehicles were ordered to be released
          and by whom. Prima facie, it appears to us that the
          aforesaid Jugars could not be released either by the law
          enforcing agencies or by the Magistrates."
                                                 (Emphasis added)
c      27. As such 'Jugaads' were being plied against the
  provisions of the Act and tt:e rules framed under it, and in case
  any 'Jugaad' is found on the road and is seized by the police
  authorities, it could not be released in favour of its owner either
D by the law enforcing agency or even by the Magistrate. Plying
  of such vehicles was in utter disregard/violation of the
  provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
         28. As to whether a particular vehicle can be defined as
   motor vehicle in terms of Section 2(28) of the Act, is to be .
E determined on the facts of each case taking into consideration
   the use of the vehicle and its suitability for being used upon the
   road. Once it is found to be suitable for being used on the road,
   it is immaterial whether it runs on the public road or private
   road, for the reason, that actual user for a particular purpose,
F is no criteria to decide the name. Definition of motor vehicle
  takes within its ambit, a dumper and tractor. Tractor which is
  used basically for agricultural purpose and a dumper is used
  in the factory premises, can suitable be adapted for being used
  on the road, therefore, they will meet the requirement of
G definition of motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act. The
  word 'only' used in Section 2(28) of the Act clearly shows that
  the exemption is confined only to those kinds of vehicles which
  are exclusively being used in a factory or in any closed
  premises. Thus, a vehicle which is not adapted for use upon
  the road, is only to be excluded.
H
     CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD                           737
 TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. SANTOSH & ORS:
     29. However, Shri S.C. Maheshwari, learned senior                A
counsel appearing for the applicant could not satisfactorily reply
as under what circumstances, if the tractor which is exclusively
used for agricultural purpose, does require registration and
insurance and driver also require a driving license, why the
same provisions would not apply in case of 'Jugaad'.                  B
     30. 'Jugaad' does not require the permit, insurance or a
driving licence for its driver. There is no specification for its
body. It does not require fitness certificate. However, passenger
vehicle has a upper limit of number of passengers it can carry.
The same remains the position for the goods vehicle as there          C
is a specification for the maximum load it can carry. The
'Jugaad' is not liable to pay any passenger or road tax like other
vehicles.
     31. In view of the above, as the 'Jugaad' is covered in the
definition ofthe motor vehicle under Section 2(28) of the Act, D
the statutory authorities cannot escape from their duty to enforce ·
the law and restrain the plying of 'Jugaad'. The statutory
authorities must ensure that 'Jugaad' can be plied only after
meeting the requirements of the Act. The same has become
a menace to public safety as they are causing a very large E
number of accidents. 'Jugaads' are not insured and the owners
of the 'Jugaad' generally do not have the financial capacity to
pay compensation to persons who suffer disablement and to
dependents of those, who lose life. Thus, considering the gravity
of the circumstances, the statutory authorities must give strict F
adherence to the circular referred to hereinabove by the Central
Government.
     32. However, we clarify that it is open to the statutory
authorities to make exemptions by issuing a notification/circular
specifically if such a vehicle is exclusively used for agricultural   G
purposes but for that sufficient specifications have to be
provided so that it cannot be used for commercial purposes.
       The matter is closed now.
R.P.                                           SLP disposed of.       H