Allowed

Shama Nikhil Basu v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Sept 2010WP/6877/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court allowed a writ petition seeking release of a seized taxi. The Court permitted deposit of Rs.10,000 and filing of an undertaking not to ply the vehicle within Greater Mumbai limits, noting the owner's lack of prior knowledge of the prohibitory orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs.10,000 and file undertaking not to ply vehicle within Greater Mumbai limits; vehicle to be released for taking it out of the city limits.

Shama Nikhil Basu Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2010)

wp6877-10

upa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6877 OF 2010

¶7

Smt. Shama Nikhil Basu ).. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶10

).. Respondents

¶11

Ms. A.P. Madhuri. for the Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondents.

¶12

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶13

Thursday, September 2 , 2010

¶14

P. C. :

¶15

Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, Rule called out and heard.

¶16

The subject matter of this writ petition is tourist taxi bearing registration No.MH-04-E-5925 registered with R.T.O., Thane. When the vehicle entered limits of Mumbai city on 16 August 2010, respondent No.2 seized the vehicle and thereafter detained the same on the ground that there was violation of the prohibitory orders passed by this Court in a PIL not to ply the vehicles which are more than eight years old on the roads of the local limits of Mumbai.

wp6877-10

upa

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle was manufactured in the year 2002 and if at all it can be said to be more than eight years old, it was only by about five months that the vehicle had crossed the eight year barrier. It is further submitted that the vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Thane and, therefore, the driver and the transporter were not aware of the prohibitory orders of this Court. The learned counsel also relied on the order dated 27 July 2010 passed by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5143 of 2010 by which this Court directed the authorities to release the vehicle on deposit of Rs.10,000/- and on filing of the undertaking not to ply the vehicle within the local limits of Greater Mumbai.

¶21

The learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes the petition and submits that the amount of deposit of Rs.10,000/- being required to be deposited was paid into the Chief Minister Relief Fund was determined many years ago and that now the amount should be enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, while we are in agreement with the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the amount of Rs.10,000/- determined more than five years ago needs to be revised to a higher amount, we are not inclined to do so in the facts of the present case, because the vehicle in question, which is registered with R.T.O., Thane, was manufactured about eight years and five months back and it is stated to be first time that the vehicle had entered the city of Mumbai.

wp6877-10

upa

In view of the above, it can be assumed that the driver and the transporter of the vehicle registered with R.T.O., Thane would not have known about the prohibitory orders of this Court. The petitioner also agrees to file an undertaking not to ply the vehicle in question within the limits of Greater Mumbai after the vehicle is released and taken out of the limits of the Mumbai city.

¶27

In the circumstances, petition is allowed by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- with Respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall in turn deposit the amount with the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before respondent No.3 that the petitioner shall not ply the vehicle within the limits of Greater Mumbai. Upon the deposit of the aforesaid amount and on filing of the undertaking by the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall release the vehicle only for taking it out of the limits of Greater Mumbai.

¶28

We make it clear that for other violations mentioned in the checking report dated 16^th August 2010, it will be open to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action regarding the said violations. This order is passed only in the context of the breach of the orders of this Court prohibiting plying vehicles within the Municipal limits of Greater Mumbai which are more than eight years old.

¶29

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶30

DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

Shama Nikhil Basu v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shama Nikhil Basu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yeshwant Waman Patil, Mumbai. Vs Vimal Bhaasker Karkera, Mumbai.

Malini K. Pal Vs Prabhavati G. Kanji Thakkar and 6 Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra Vs Harishchandra Gutt and Co. and Ors.

P. Palaniswami Perumal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Chand Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sagar Shivaji Patil Vs the Secretary, the Maharashtra State Technical Education Board