1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2009 Shaikh Shabbir s/o Shaikh Bashir, Age 35 years, Occu.Business, R/o Pentionpura, Hingoli, Taluka and District Hingoli .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station, Hingoli (Rural) 2. The Superintendent of Police, Hingoli 3. Bhaurao G.Kendre, Age 56 years, Occu.Service [Police Inspector, P.S.Hingoli (Rural)] R/o Hingoli, Taluka and Dist.Hingoli .. RESPONDENTS Mr. H.I.Pathan, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 & 2 Respondent No.3 served CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 17th December 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V. HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 2 has been filed by the petitioner praying for twin reliefs of issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to release the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No.MH-38/F-1265 and also prays that it be declared that the detention of the vehicle is illegal and contrary to law and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards the loss of income. The petitioner incidentally prays that the amount of compensation be recovered from the salary of respondent No.3. 3. At the outset, Mr. Pathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press for the relief of payment of compensation in this petition but states that appropriate proceedings would be filed before the appropriate forum for seeking compensation for the illegal detention of the vehicle. 4. It appears that the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. an auto- rickshaw bearing registration No.MH-38/F-1265 came to be detained by respondent No.3 for infraction of various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid powers came to be exercised by the respondent No.3 under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reasons for detention of the aforesaid vehicle are spelt out in the N.C. which was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. We are further informed that the petitioner has obtained bail from the Judicial Magistrate in respect 3 of N.C. which was submitted by respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, immediately on the next day he had produced the documents and on subsequent date also but on account of non- fulfilling the demand of Rs.20,000/- the respondent No.3 has not released the vehicle. The petitioner had accordingly complained to the superior officers of the respondent No.3 praying therein for release of the vehicle and taking action against respondent No.3 for his failure to release the said vehicle. 5. On notice being issued to the respondents, an affidavit-in- reply has been filed by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has denied that he had demanded Rs.20,000/- or that the documents had been produced by the petitioner. In fact, at paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply, a statement is made that because of the non-production of the papers the vehicle in question is detained. 6. According to us the aforesaid disputed questions of facts cannot be decided in this writ petition. However, unfortunately the vehicle of the petitioner has been detained and the petitioner who plies the said vehicle by ferrying the passengers from one destination to the other is deprived of the use of the said vehicle for earning his livelihood. In that light of the matter, therefore, we direct the petitioner to produce the documents before respondent No.3 and further direct respondent No.3 to examine 4 the said documents and to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Mr.Pathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner would produce the documents on 19th December 2009 before respondent No.3. Mr.Kurundkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor also states that the respondent No.3 would examine the documents and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two days thereafter. In the event the order passed by the respondent No.3 is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, it is needless to state that the petitioner would have right to avail the remedies available to the petitioner in law. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. 8. Copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Sheristedar be provided to the learned Counsel for the parties to act upon. ( R.K. DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/1097.09Acriwp)