Allowed

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

Bombay HC2 Sept 2010WP/6998/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the seizure of an 8-year-old trailer entering Mumbai. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,000 and file an undertaking not to ply the vehicle within Greater Mumbai, releasing it only for exit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to deposit Rs.10,000 and file an undertaking; vehicle released for exit from Greater Mumbai limits.

P. Palaniswami Perumal Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2010)

wp6998-10

upa

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 6998 OF 2010

¶7

P. Palaniswami Perumal ).. 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 trailer bearing registration No.TN-04-J 0689 registered with R.T.O., Namakkal in the State of Tamil Nadu. When the vehicle entered limits of Mumbai city on 21 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.

wp6998-10

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 three months that the vehicle had crossed the eight year barrier. It is further submitted that the vehicle is registered with R.T.O., Namakkal in the State of Tamil Nadu 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., Namakkal in the State of Tamil Nadu , was manufactured about eight years back and it is stated to be first time that the vehicle had entered the city of Mumbai.

wp6998-10

upa

In view of the above, it can be assumed that the driver and the transporter of the vehicle registered with R.T.O., Namakkal in the State of Tamil Nadu 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

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Palaniswami Perumal 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

Cases cited

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.

Shama Nikhil Basu 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