IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5033 OF 2008 M/s. Vinod Roadlines Pvt.Ltd ).......Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & anr. )........ Respondants. Smt. A.P. Madhuri for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Masurkar GP for the Respondents. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 14TH JULY 2008. P.C.: 1. The learned counsel appearing for the parties refered to an order dated 25-1-2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 30 of 2005. We pass the same order for similar reasons and issue the following direction: “ We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid vehicle shall not be plied in Mumbai again. The learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 suggested that for this lapse, petitioner be directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the RTO respondent no.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has undertaken to pay Rs. 10,000/- to respondent no.2. We direct that on payment of the said amount the aforesaid vehicle HR-38-9575 be released to the petitioner. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be brought again in the city of Mumbai and shall not be plied in the city of Mumbai.” 2. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 3. The security deposit should be deposited and undertaking be given before the release of the vehicle. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.