Disposed

M/S. Royal Express Service v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2008WP/1305/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of a writ petition filed by a courier agent seeking release of goods seized by local body authorities. The court directed the respondents to hold a proper inquiry, decide the matter within six weeks after receiving a representation, or decide within four weeks if no representation is filed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation within two weeks; matter to be decided by respondents within four weeks of receipt or six weeks from today.

M/S. Royal Express Service Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2008) — LawSathi Research

¶1

VPH

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 1305 OF 2008

¶5

M/s. Royal Express ServicePetitioner
Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra & Ors.Respondents

¶7

Mr. M. S. Mohite i/b Kavita Gandi, for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs. A. S. Pai, for the respondent State.

¶9

Mrs. Katdare, for the respondent B.M.C.

¶10

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, &
A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.

¶11

DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008.

¶12

PC :-

¶13

1.Earlier petition being Writ Petition (L) No.
1395 of 2008 filed by the owner of the vehicle,
against the respondents has been dismissed by this
Court by an order dated 24th June, 2008, which reads
as under-

¶14

"P.C.

¶15

1.Heard learned counselfor the

¶16

petitioner.

¶17

2.What we find from the record is that
the conduct of the petitioner is absolutely

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

fraudulent. Initially he entered into the
corporation area by truck bearing No.9449,
however, its real truck number was 4449.
Thereafter number was changed by applying
black substance (Kajal). That truck was
seized by the Octroi Officer of the
Corporation. The petitioner brought another
truck of the same number from another Octroi
Naka and paid the octroi. Thereby the
petitioner is trying to make out a case that
he has paid the octroi.

¶20

3.One of the conditions for entertaining
the petition under Article 226 is that the
petitioner must come with clean hands. The
conduct of the petitioner does not inspire
confidence. He is not coming before this
Court with clean hands. Therefore, we are not
inclined to entertain the petition. In the
result, petition is dismissed."

¶21

2.Now, the petitioner claims that he is the
courier agent who was transporting the goods which
were in the vehicle and by the present petition, he is
seeking release of the goods. The learned counsel for
the respondent submits that since the aforesaid
petition filed by owner of the vehicle transporting

¶22

- 3 -

¶23

these goods, was dismissed without entertaining the
same, this petition without going into the controversy
in the matter be also dismissed.

¶24

3.We are of the view that after the goods and
vehicles were seized by the respondents, for allegedly
violation of the laws, they were bound in terms of law
to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate final orders.
This has not been done so far. However, the learned
counsel for the respondent submits that a show-cause
notice has been issued, which has not been replied to
by the respondent No.3.

¶25

4.According to the respondent government, no
notice was given to the petitioner. If the petitioher
has any claim, the petitioner may on his own move a
representation before the respondents within two weeks
from today. We direct the respondents that the matter
be decided in accordance with law within a period of
four weeks from today on receipt of such
representation or even otherwise within six weeks from
today.

¶26

5.In view of aforesaid directions, writ petition
is disposed of.

¶27

- 4 -

¶28

Sd/-
[ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]

M/S. Royal Express Service v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Royal Express Service v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mushiruddin Khatalsab Bepari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nochur R Vasudevan Lma S/O. Ns Ramachandran Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Suresh Narayan Binavade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishal @ Shivaji Mahadeo Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ganesh S. Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Asif a. Mulji Vs the State of Maharashtra