Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Udaynath Virendranath Mishra vs The State Of Mah And Anr
2010 Latest Caselaw 4 Bom

Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 4 Bom
Judgement Date : 11 October, 2010

Bombay High Court
Udaynath Virendranath Mishra vs The State Of Mah And Anr on 11 October, 2010
Bench: P.V. Hardas
                                            1




                                                                                   
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                          
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                  CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1131 OF 2009




                                                         
    Udaynath Virendranath Mishra                                       PETITIONER


                  VERSUS




                                          
    1. State of Maharashtra,
                          
        Through Principal Secretary,
        Transport Ministry, Mumbai
                         
    2. Regional Transport Officer,
        Regional Transport Office,
        Railway Station Road, Aurangabad                                 RESPONDENTS

Mr.S.D.Hiwarekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State.

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

DATE : 11/10/2010

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.)

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India,

by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing

respondent no.2 Department of Regional Transport Authority,

Aurangabad to release trolleys no.JKE/23/2007-08 and KET/379.

The petitioner also prays that respondent no.2 be directed to exempt

the petitioner from paying the taxes during the period of detention.

2. The two trolleys of the petitioner came to be detained by the

respondents on account of variance in the chasis no. and in one

case, where the chasis no. was not visible. The appropriate

proceedings came to be lodged before the Magistrate and the

petitioner pleaded guilty and was released on payment of fine. The

petitioner submitted an application before the Chief Judicial

Magistrate for release of the vehicles, which came to be rejected by

the Magistrate. The petitioner could have avail the remedy of

challenging of the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, but instead,

chose to file the present petition.

3. In response to the notice which had been issued before

issuance of rule, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply

and in the affidavit in reply at para no.5 and 6, justification has been

put forth for detention of the said vehicle. The aforesaid justification

pertains to the challan, which had already been presented before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate and to which the petitioner had pleaded

guilty. The sole question which is now therefore posed before us in

this writ petition is whether the detention of the vehicles is warranted

in the light of the fact that no inquiry or action is contemplated

against the petitioner.

4. The learned A.P.P. has very forthrightly submitted before us

that presently no proceedings are pending against the petitioner. In

that light of the matter, therefore, we do not see any justification in

detaining the vehicles. The petitioner was prosecuted before the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, to which charge, the petitioner pleaded

guilty and had been punished in accordance with Law. Since no

inquiry or action is contemplated against the petitioner, the detention

of the vehicles is un-warranted. We are, therefore, inclined to allow

the petition in terms of prayer clause 'B' to the petition. In respect of

the exemption of payment from taxes for the period during which the

vehicles had been detained, the petitioner may file an appropriate

application, seeking exemption from the respondents. If such

application is filed, the respondents to deal and decide the same in

accordance with Law. While allowing this petition, we direct that the

vehicles be released within 2 days from today.

5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above.

Petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs.

           (A.V.POTDAR, J.)                                   (P.V.HARDAS, J.)





    khs/OCT. 2010/cri.w.p.1131-09





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter