Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 4 Bom
Judgement Date : 11 October, 2010
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
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!