1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Criminal Writ Petition No. 224/2009 ( Smt. Sarita Sunil Khosla .vs. State of Mah. And ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A. H. Lohiya, Advocate h/f Mr. R.S. Chawla, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. C. N. Adgokar, APP for Respondents. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : JULY 2, 2009 Heard. By the present petition, the petitioner- owner of motor truck bearing registration No. MH-32-B-3861 which was seized by PSO, Police Station, Wardha on 13.9.2008 on the allegations of kerosene being found to be mixed in the diesel tank of said truck and thus allegedly having contravened the provisions of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, has prayed for issuing suitable writ, order or direction to respondents for releasing said seized Truck on suprutnama of petitioner on furnishing solvent surety and/or personal bond of petitioner. Incidental prayer of quashing and setting aside order dated 22.1.2009 is also made by 2 petitioner. It is the grievance of learned counsel of petitioner that the condition imposed by respondent no. 2 of furnishing bank guarantee while passing order dated 22.1.2009 in favour of petitioner of release of seized truck on suprutnama in a proceeding taken by him for such a purpose being oppressive and thus having rendered said order passed becoming fruitless has necessitated petitioner to approach this court with present petition. Now having regard to fact that truck in question was seized on 13.9.2008, order of release of the same on supratnama was passed on 22.1.2009 and still petitioner is unable to fulfill the condition imposed while passing order impugned apparently shows of there being some merits in his grievance. Now carefully considering relevant circular relied upon by respondent no.2 for imposing condition of furnishing bank guarantee and same revealing that directions given therein of such nature are more so in nature of guidelines and not mandatory but also having regard to fact that petitioner has never re-approached respondent no.2 for modifying said condition which is said to be oppressive, it appears proper to dispose of this matter by giving necessary direction for serving ends of justice rather than invoking special jurisdiction for such matter. It appears accordingly as petitioner has apparently rushed to this Court without exhausting the 3 other remedies available to him. Hence petitioner is directed to re-approach respondent no.2 for modification of condition of furnishing bank guarantee imposed while directing release of truck by respondent no.2 vide order impugned in the petition. Petitioner to make necessary application for such purpose within 7 days from today. In event of petitioner making such application, respondent no.2 should consider the same on its own merits and uninfluenced by condition imposed earlier of furnishing the bank guarantee. Needless to add that respondent no.2 shall dispose of said application at an earliest and preferably within four weeks from today. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE halwai