Allowed

Kartarsingh Bhawanishankar Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2019WP/637/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court disposed of a petition against the seizure of the petitioner's trailer. The Court released the vehicle and documents subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000 and abiding by an undertaking not to ply the vehicle in Mumbai jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Release of the subject trailer (Ashok Leyland Multi Axle) and original documents upon deposit of Rs. 10,000 with the RTO and submission of an undertaking to not ply in Mumbai.

Kartarsingh Bhawanishankar Choudhary Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

11-wp-637-2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.637 OF 2019

¶4

Kartarsingh Bhawanishankar Choudhary ..Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶5

Mr.B.A. Lawate for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr.F.R. Shhaikh, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE : 26^th MARCH 2019

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Rule.

¶10

The learned AGP waives service for the respondents. Petition is taken up forthwith for final disposal as the issue is covered by several orders passed by this Court.

¶11

The Trailer belonging to the petitioner came to be seized on 20.12.2018 by the respondent No.3, along with the original documents under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on the ground that the vehicle which is a National Permit is

¶12

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

¶13

11-wp-637-2019

¶14

more than 8 years old. The contention of the petitioner is that the said vehicle is registered at State Transport Department, Kishanganj, D.T.O., Rajasthan, the said authority has issued fitness certificate in respect of the said vehicle which is valid till 20.07.2019 and he has also paid the Annual Road Tax of the said vehicle. The petitioner assails the said order of seizer of his vehicle and prays that the vehicle be released.

¶15

The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the vehicle, subject matter of this petition. The vehicle was admittedly plied in the city of Mumbai in breach of the directions issued under Order dated 03^rd March 2004. Reliance is placed on several orders passed by this Court in similar cases, wherein subject to undertaking given by the owner, not to ply the vehicles in the City of Mumbai and subject to deposit of certain amounts, the vehicle was ordered to be released.

¶16

Accordingly, in the present petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner has already given an undertaking that the subject vehicle will not enter in the jurisdiction of RTO Mumbai-Respondent No.3 and entire Mumbai District. We accept the undertaking. In light of this undertaking,

¶17

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

¶18

11-wp-637-2019

¶19

we dispose of this petition by passing following order :-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

(a) The subject vehicle, namely, the Ashok Leyland Multi Axle (Trailer) bearing Registration No.RJ-01 GA 6216 be released along with the Original documents, subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with the concerned Regional Transport Officer;

¶22

(b) The petitioner would abide by the undertaking submitted to this Court in form of an affidavit on 01.02.2018.

¶23

(c) Only upon deposit of the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the concerned Regional Transport Office the subject vehicle shall be released on production of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶24

(d) Rule is made absolute in above terms.

¶25

page 3 of 4

¶26

11-wp-637-2019

¶27

(e) All concerned to act on the copy of this

¶28

order duly authenticated by the Personal Assistant of

¶29

this Court.

¶30

(SMT.BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶31

N.S. Kamble page 4 of 4

Kartarsingh Bhawanishankar Choudhary v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartarsingh Bhawanishankar Choudhary 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Anandrao Ghare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Sunder Sontakke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shamshuddin Javed Khan @ Saddam Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Maharaja Retreat Chs Ltd. Thr K. v. Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepak Madhavrao Mankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhimraj Rohidas Ghadge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.