Allowed

Sharad R. Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Feb 2011WP/7822/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court ordered the release of a seized heavy vehicle if the petitioner deposited Rs. 30,000 within two weeks and filed an undertaking to remove it from Greater Mumbai, enhancing the earlier deposit requirement to ensure the prohibitory order is effective.

What did the court decide?

Vehicle released for removal from Greater Mumbai limits upon deposit of Rs. 30,000 by Petitioner and undertaking to not ply the vehicle in the city.

Sharad R. Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2011)

wp-7822-10.sxw

dgm

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 7822 OF 2010

¶7

Sharad R. Sharma vs

¶8

1 The State of Maharashtra & ors.

¶9

.... Petitioner

¶10

.... Respondents

¶11

Ms. A. P. Madhuri for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Additional Government Pleader for respondents.

¶13

CORAM: DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.

¶14

DATE : February 02, 2011

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

The heavy vehicle belonging to the Petitioner bearing registration no. MH-04-F-6269 was registered with the R.T.O., Thane. When the vehicle entered the limits of the city of Mumbai in September 2010, it was seized on the ground that there was a violation of a prohibitory order passed by this Court in a public interest litigation not to ply vehicles which are more than 8 years old on the roads within the local limits of the city of Mumbai.

¶17

wp-7822-10.sxw

¶18

¶19

2 On behalf of the Petitioner, it has been contended that the

¶20

vehicle had crossed the eight year limit by only eleven days and the Petitioner was not aware of the prohibitory order. The attention of the Court has been drawn to several orders passed by Division Benches of this Court by which vehicles have been ordered to be released subject to the payment of an amount with the RTO, to be deposited in turn with the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. This Court also recorded the undertaking that the vehicle will not be plied in Mumbai and shall be taken out of the limits of the city.

¶21

3 Having perused the orders passed by this Court in previous cases, we are of the view that a similar order may be passed in the present case, subject to an enhancement of the amount to be deposited. The prohibitory order is intended to serve the public interest of ensuring that polluting vehicles do not ply in the city of Mumbai. Unless the amount of deposit, which was originally fixed several years ago, is suitably enhanced, there would be no deterrent to prevent breaches of the orders passed by Division Benches. In the circumstances, conditional on the Petitioner depositing with the Third Respondent an amount of Rupees thirty thousand within a period of

¶22

wp-7822-10.sxw

¶23

¶24

two weeks from today and filing an undertaking that the vehicle will not be allowed to ply within the limits of Greater Mumbai, the Third Respondent shall release the vehicle only for taking it out of the limits of Greater Mumbai. The Third Respondent shall, upon the deposit of the amount in turn deposit the amount with the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund.

¶25

4 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order

¶26

as to costs.

¶27

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.D. Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)

Sharad R. Sharma v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharad R. Sharma 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

Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Ltd,. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

T. Krishnan Vs the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Suryakant Kadakane Vs Jaganath Vinayak and Ors.

Pramod Fulchand Jategaonkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kolhapur Mahila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs the Collector and the District Magistrate and Anr.

Mrs. Baby Ankush Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra Home Dept. and Anr.