1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1131 OF 2009 Udaynath Virendranath Mishra PETITIONER VERSUS 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Transport Ministry, Mumbai 2. Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Railway Station Road, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS Mr.S.D.Hiwarekar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 11/10/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 Department of Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad to release trolleys no.JKE/23/2007-08 and KET/379. The petitioner also prays that respondent no.2 be directed to exempt the petitioner from paying the taxes during the period of detention. 2 2. The two trolleys of the petitioner came to be detained by the respondents on account of variance in the chasis no. and in one case, where the chasis no. was not visible. The appropriate proceedings came to be lodged before the Magistrate and the petitioner pleaded guilty and was released on payment of fine. The petitioner submitted an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicles, which came to be rejected by the Magistrate. The petitioner could have avail the remedy of challenging of the aforesaid order of the Magistrate, but instead, chose to file the present petition. 3. In response to the notice which had been issued before issuance of rule, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply at para no.5 and 6, justification has been put forth for detention of the said vehicle. The aforesaid justification pertains to the challan, which had already been presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and to which the petitioner had pleaded guilty. The sole question which is now therefore posed before us in this writ petition is whether the detention of the vehicles is warranted in the light of the fact that no inquiry or action is contemplated against the petitioner. 4. The learned A.P.P. has very forthrightly submitted before us that presently no proceedings are pending against the petitioner. In that light of the matter, therefore, we do not see any justification in detaining the vehicles. The petitioner was prosecuted before the 3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, to which charge, the petitioner pleaded guilty and had been punished in accordance with Law. Since no inquiry or action is contemplated against the petitioner, the detention of the vehicles is un-warranted. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the petition in terms of prayer clause 'B' to the petition. In respect of the exemption of payment from taxes for the period during which the vehicles had been detained, the petitioner may file an appropriate application, seeking exemption from the respondents. If such application is filed, the respondents to deal and decide the same in accordance with Law. While allowing this petition, we direct that the vehicles be released within 2 days from today. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above. Petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT. 2010/cri.w.p.1131-09