Bombay High Court
Karshanbhai S/O Jethabhai ... vs The District Collector And Others on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
908-criwp506-21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.506 OF 2021
Karshanbhai S/o Jethabhai Makwana
Age - 41 years, Occ.Driver
R/o Dhoriyanes, Amardal,Tq.Ranavav,
Dist.Porbandar State Gujrat. .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
1] The District Collector,
Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad.
2] The Tahsildar
Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist.Osmanabad
3] The Police Inspector,
Osmanabad Rural Police Station,
Tq.& Dist.Osmanabad. .. RESPONDENTS
....
Adv.Mr.A.R.Borulkar for petitioner
A.P.P. Mr.S.N.Morampalle for Respondent State.
....
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
DATE : 22/07/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of both the
sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
3] While passing the order under Section 6(A)(1) and (2) of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the learned Collector, Osmanabad by the
impugned order has inter alia directed the vehicle seized to be returned to
the petitioner subject to various conditions. He is now seeking some
modification in these conditions.
4] After having heard both the sides for a while it transpires that the
908-criwp506-21.odt
vehicle has been directed to be returned to the petitioner on furnishing bank
guarantee or solvency certificate to the tune of 50% of the price of the
vehicle. By another condition he has been asked to furnish 2 solvent sureties
for the remaining 50% amount.
5] The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that this condition of
furnishing bank guarantee or solvency certificate to the tune of 50% would
add to the delay which has already occurred in getting back the vehicle. He
will have to approach the Registering Authority which is time consuming.
Instead of keeping it vague the petitioner is ready to furnish a bank
guarantee or solvency certificate to the tune of Rs.5 lakh which would serve
the purpose as the F.I.R. mentions value of the truck to be Rs.10 lakh.
6] Similarly the learned advocate submits that since the petitioner hails
from Gujrat but the surety is to be furnished in Maharashtra it has become
practically difficult for him to fulfill the condition. Instead, the condition
may be modified and he may be permitted to furnish one surety instead of
two.
7] Taking into account the fact that the truck is seized about an year ago
the request being made is in my considered view innocuous and can easily
be accepted and would serve the purpose.
8] The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is modified. The
conditions imposed at Sr.Nos.(iii) and (iv) of para 3 of the operative order
are modified as under :
[iii] The petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee or solvency
certificate for an amount of Rs.5 lakh.
[iv] The petitioner shall furnish one solvent surety on a stamp paper
of Rs.100/- to the tune of Rs.5 lakh.
9] With this modification, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule is made
absolute to this extent.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
umg
