Dismissed¶18

Om Umresh Gupta v. the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC17 Dec 2025/8099/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Om Gupta v. Transport Commissioner Mumbai; Writ Petition No.8099/2025; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; Prafulla S. Khubalkar; decided 17-12-2025; show cause notice dated 26-11-2025; proposed suspension of registration of vehicle MH-40-CT-4664; Section 53 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; Article 227 Constitution of India; maintainability of writ petition against show cause notice; show cause notice not an order; petition dismissed, no order as to costs; merits kept open.

What did the court decide?

The show cause notice dated 26-11-2025 is not an order: the authority merely called upon the petitioner to give his explanation within seven days and recorded no inference; the petitioner is entitled to submit his explanation/reply, after which the authorities are entitled to pass appropriate orders. ¶15

Om Umresh Gupta Vs the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

wp 8099.25.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.8099/2025 Om Gupta V the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and others

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Mr. T.D. Mandlekar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. Bissa, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶9

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 17-12-2025.

¶10

Heard Mr. Mandlekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

2.Petitioner has challenged the show cause notice dated

¶12

26-11-2025 issued by respondent no.2 by which the petitioner is called

¶13

upon to give explanation as to why the registration of the vehicle bearing
registration No.MH-40-CT-4664 be not suspended.

¶14

3.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the show
cause notice is issued by the authority within jurisdiction. In support of his
submissions he relies on provisions of Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. He also submits that the show cause notice is in fact an order
and therefore the petition is maintainable

¶15

4.On perusal of show cause notice dated 26-11-2025, it is
clear that the authority has only called upon the petitioner to give his
explanation within seven days as to why the registration of the vehicle be
not suspended. It is thus clear that the authority has not recorded any
inference and this show cause notice cannot be treated as an order and the
petitioner is entitled to submit his explanation/reply in response to the
show cause and thereafter the authorities are entitled to pass appropriate

¶16

orders.

¶17

2 wp 8099.25.odt

¶18

5. In view of this, no indulgence is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is not required to be entertained. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶19

6. The issues on merits are kept open.

¶20

 (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

¶21

Deshmukh

Om Umresh Gupta v. the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Umresh Gupta v. the Transport Commissioner, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amjad Rafik Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Gulabchand Chandak vs Smt. Asha Ambarrao Selokar

Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, Amravati, Thr. President, Dr. N.R. Dhande and Ors. vs Subhash Rambhau Deshmukh and Others

Sau. Sushma W/O Bharat Thorat vs the Minister, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Sumit S/O Ravindra Biswas Vs v and M Builders and Developers, Thr. Partner, Dr. Manoj G. Deodekar, Amravati

Rajesh Raibhan Madame vs Sanjay Barde, Genereal Manager, Bhandara District Cooperative Bank Ltd, Bhandara and Anr.