1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1145 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : February 23, 2010 1. Heard Shri Abhijit S. More, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Shri B.V. Wagh, learned A.P.P. for the Respondents. 2. Rule. With consent of learned Advocates for the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Additional 2 Collector, Latur in File bearing No. 2009/supply/desk-4/ECAct/Kavi-25, dated 14.10.2009 which is a matter in relation to CR. No.21 of 2009 registered with Rural Police Station, Latur, for offences punishable under Essential Commodities Act. 3. In the said crime, truck bearing No. MH-25-B-9102 was attached. Present petitioner claims to be the owner of the said truck and seeks release of the same on execution of bond and dispensation of the condition of bank guarantee imposed. 4. It may be noted that in the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, the copy of which is at Exhibit B with the petition, name of the owner of the said truck given is 3 Ashishkumar Bansilal Somani, whereas present petitioner is Satishkumar Bansilal Somani. In the body of the order, the learned Additional Collector mentioned that it was Ashishkumar Somani who was the owner of the truck and directed said Ashishkumar to furnishg bank guarantee of the value of the truck which may be determined by the R.T.O. It is this order directing furnishing of bank guarantee which is sought to be challenged in this writ petition. 5. In the first place, along with this writ petit6ion, no documents, such as R.C.book etc., are annexed to show that the petitioner is entitled to claim that he is the owner of the truck and not said Ashishkumar as mentioned in the order of the learned Collector. 4 Ashishkumar Somani is not made party to the present petition. Petitioner is not entitled to seek modification of order which appears to be passed in favour of Ashishkumar on hearing him, when he is not party to the petition. 6. In the facts and circumstances, if at all present petitioner Satishkumar Bansilal Somani is the owner of the truck, he should have approached the Additional Collector, Latur with an application indicating his ownership to the truck and for custody of the same. If such an application is made, the learned Additional shall decide the ownership of the truck on merits and pass appropriate order regarding custody of the same. 5 7. With observations as above, writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. Date:23/02/2010 pnd/criwp1145.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)