Disposed

Nandu Dattatray Matkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Oct 2005WP/5350/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought relief regarding his detained vehicle unauthorizedly plated in Mumbai. Acknowledging repeated violations of a prior Division Bench order, the Court imposed a deterrent deposit of Rs. 20,000 to prevent future unauthorized plying.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 20,000; vehicle released for one non-ucharging journey outside municipal limits upon undertaking non-plying.

Nandu Dattatray Matkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 5350 OF 2005

¶5

 Nandu Dattaray Matker ... Petitioner

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents

¶8

 Smt. A. P. Madhuri for Petitioner.

¶9

 Mrs. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P. for Respondent.

¶10

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 26, 2005
 P.C.

¶11

 . Rule. Heard forthwith.

¶12

 . The Petitioner is an owner of a heavy motor
 vehicle purchased in the year 1999 and registered
 with the RTO at Thane (Registration No. MH-04 H
 1305). The vehicle has unauthorizedly been plied
 within the municipal limits of the Municipal
 Corporation of Greater Mumbai and was detained by
 the office of the Regional Transport Officer,
 Mumbai West, Andheri. The plying of the vehicle in
 Mumbai is clearly in violation of the order passed
 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition

¶13

¶14

 No. 1762 of 1999 on 3rd March, 2004. We are
 constrained to take a serious note of the repeated
 violations of the order of the Division Bench which
 are taking place. A large number of matters have
 come up before this Court almost every week since
 the Court resumed after the Summer Recess on 6th

¶15

 June, 2005. Though initially this Court had
 directed the release of vehicles involved in
 violations of the order against the deposit of an
 amount of Rs.10,000/-, the repeated violations that
 have been brought to the notice of the Court since
 then, have constrained us to direct that the amount
 that should be deposited should be suitably
 increased as a deterrent. We are of the view that
 unless a deterrent is imposed, the judgment of the
 Division Bench which is based on sound

¶16

 considerations of public interest and public health
 will be violated with impunity. In the facts of
 the present case, we direct a deposit of
 Rs.20,000/- with the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.

¶17

 2. In these circumstances, this petition is
 disposed of by directing the Petitioner to deposit
 with the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund an amount of

¶18

¶19

 rs.20,000/-. The Petitioner shall deposit this

¶20

 amount with the Second Respondent who shall, in
 turn forward the amount to the Chief Minister’s
 Relief Fund. The Petitioner shall file an

¶21

 undertaking before the Second Respondent that the
 vehicle shall not, hereafter, be plied within the
 Municipal limits of Greater Mumbai. The Second
 Respondent shall subject to compliance with the
 aforesaid conditions release the vehicle only for
 one journey within the Municipal limits of Greater
 Mumbai so as to enable the Petitioner to take the

¶22

 vehicle outside the Municipal limits.

¶23

 3. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There

¶24

 shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

¶26

 (DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.)

Nandu Dattatray Matkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandu Dattatray Matkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanaji Shamrao Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shriram Vaijanath Mahajan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandip Subash Dabhole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Akkalkot Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shubhada Narayan Gaikwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babita Balraj Racha Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.