1 18.WP.11-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.11 OF 2011 Mr.Navin Raju Shettiyar. ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra and another. .. Respondents. .... Mr.Khan Abdul Wahab, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms.Seema Rawade, Advocate for the Respondent No.2­B.M.C.. Mr.P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor for the State. .... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 05TH JANUARY, 2011. P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board. 2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on instructions states that the Petitioner is willing to pay the deficit octroi duty forthwith and would undertake to pay the penalty amount as and when demanded, after complying with the formalities as referred to in the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Sushmita Sen Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.. reported in 2008(2) Mh.L.J. Page­42. PPD 2 18.WP.11-11 3. In view of this statement, learned Counsel for the Corporation submits that the vehicle in question will be released subject to complying with the other requisite formalities, besides paying the deficit octroi amount. That however will be without prejudice to the option available to the Corporation to prosecute the Petitioner and further demand towards the penalty/fine amount from the Petitioner in the event the Petitioner was to be convicted in connection with the said prosecution. 4. In view of the above, nothing survives for consideration in this Petition. Petition is disposed of on the basis of the above statements made by the parties through their Counsel. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)