Allowed

Mr. Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jun 2011WP/5509/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the detention of his vehicle over eight years old under a prohibitory order in Greater Bombay after it inadvertently entered limits due to diversion. Court applied an identical prior decision instead of recounting the legal principles. Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 and get vehicle released for out-of-city movement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 10,000 with Respondent No. 3 and file an undertaking not to ply the vehicle within Greater Bombay; upon compliance, vehicle to be released for taking it out of Great

Mr. Jaswant Singh and Ors. Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2011)

skc

WP-5509-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5509 OF 2011

¶7

Jaswant Singh versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ulhas Kerkar i/b. Mr. V. K. Fernandes for Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur - Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

27 July 2011.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶15

Rule. By consent of the parties rule returnable forthwith.

¶16

The petitioner is the owner of a transport vehicle bearing registration

¶17

no. MH-04-AL-5981 registered with R.T.O. Navi Mumbai, Thane on 6^th

¶18

June 2001. The said vehicle is 10 years old (i.e. more than 8 years old). The petitioner on 15^th July 2011 was carrying the goods in the said vehicle for the purpose of transporting the same from Bhiwandi, Thane to Hyderabad.

skc

WP-5509-11

Thane – Belapur Road from which the said vehicle was being taken, was blocked due to some accident and therefore the traffic was diverted. It is submitted that part of the diversion came within the limits of Greater Bombay and the petitioner was not aware that in view of the prohibitory Order passed by this Court vehicles which are more than eight years old could not be plied within the limits of Greater Bombay. It is contended that the petitioner never intended to enter the limits of Greater Bombay, however the petitioner had to take his vehicle through diversion in view of the accident and some part of the diversion came within the limits of Greater Bombay. The vehicle was intercepted by the respondent no.3 and detained in view of the order of this Court dated 3^rd March 2004 in Notice of Motion No. 57 of 2004 in Writ Petition No. 1762 of 1999 [Bombay Environmental Action Group vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.].

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 2^nd September 2010 rendered in Writ Petition No. 6877 of 2010 [Smt.

¶24

Shama Nikhil Basu vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ] and therefore the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said Order by giving similar direction to the respondents.

WP-5509-11

skc

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that since

¶29

the vehicle of the petitioner entered the limits of Greater Bombay and was more than eight years old and therefore in view of the decision of this Court, the same was detained by the Regional Transport Authorities. However it is not disputed that the issue involved in the present writ petition is identical to the one involved in writ petition no. 6877 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 2^nd September 2010.

¶30

Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the Order dated 2^nd September 2010 passed in writ petition no. 6877 of 2010. In the instant case it is not in dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is identical to one involved in the writ petition no. 6877 of 2010 and is squarely covered by the said decision and therefore it will be appropriate to incorporate the relevant observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said Order, which reads thus:

¶31

“7. 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

skc

WP-5509-11

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.

¶36

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 prohibitng plying vehicles within the Municipal limits of Greater Mumbai which are more than eight years old.”

¶37

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has also not disputed that the decision of this Court dated 2^nd September 2010 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. It is in these circumstances we dispose of the petition in terms of the Order dated 2^nd September 2010, particularly in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said Order. Rule made absolute in the above terms.

¶38

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶39

(A. R. JOSHI, J.)

Mr. Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Jaswant Singh and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chintaman Namdeo Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Popat Dhondiram Chavan, Vs Meena Sanjay Chavan and Ors.

Prashant Prabhakar Patil Vs Suhas Vishnu Patil and Ors.

Nitin Shashikant Jadhav Vs Tejaswita N Jadhav

Dr Sunita Vijay Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Narayan Chetandas Sundrani Vs Collector