Allowed

M/S. Satish Cargo Movers, Chandmori Nagaland v. the State of Maharashtra Home Dept. (Transport) and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Dec 2016WP/13603/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bombay allowed a writ petition seeking release of three seized vehicles owned by petitioner. Court permitted release subject to undertaking to move vehicles out of Mumbai within two weeks and payment of penalty.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; release of vehicles conditional on undertaking to move out of Greater Mumbai within two weeks and payment of Rs.10,000 penalty per vehicle.

M/S. Satish Cargo Movers, Chandmori Nagaland… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

YBG

918-wp-13603-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13603 OF 2016

¶6

M/s. Satish Cargo Movers .. Petitioner - Versus - State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶7

Mrs. A.P.Madhuri for petitioner Mr. Vishal Thadani, AGP for State.

¶8

CORAM : V.M.KANADE & MS.NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 8^th December 2016.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

1] Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for State. The grievance of the petitioner is that three vehicles owned by the petitioner which are more than eight years old were seized at Mumbai Port Trust on account of the vehicles being more than eight years old and were not allowed to ply in Mumbai.

¶11

2] The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that these vehicles have been registered in Nagaland where there is no such restriction. It is submitted that the owner of these vehicles would suffer irreparable loss if these vehicles are not released. Our attention is also invited to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, permitting release of vehicle

YBG

918-wp-13603-16

on payment of find.

3] We find that one vehicle out of the vehicles seized is eight years and six months old and other vehicles are 10 years old. We have perused the order passed by this Court in W.P.8475 of 2006 in the case of Avinash Nighot Vs. State of Maharashtra dated 21^st December 2006.

¶17

4] In our view, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the vehicle which is othewise allowed to ply on road elsewhere in the Country. Under the circumstances, we allow the petition on the following terms:-

¶18

(a) The petitioner will given an undertaking to Regional Transport Office that he will move the vehicles outside greater Mumbai within two weeks from the date of their release;

¶19

(b) Before removal of the vehicles, the petitioner shall pay Rs.10,000/- for each vehicle as penalty.

¶20

5] Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of.

¶21

(MS. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J) (V.M.KANADE, J)

M/S. Satish Cargo Movers, Chandmori Nagaland v. the State of Maharashtra Home Dept. (Transport) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Satish Cargo Movers, Chandmori Nagaland v. the State of Maharashtra Home Dept. (Transport) 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

Thea Ajit Dsuuza Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Babu Sethe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohammad Zafar Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amit Dhanishankar Upadhyay Vs Sr. Inspector and Ors.

Rijul Naresh Gosar Vs Anthony Gyanchandra Nadar and Anr.

Rammilan Harishankar Shukla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.