VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 1305 OF 2008 M/s. Royal Express Service Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. M. S. Mohite i/b Kavita Gandi, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. S. Pai, for the respondent State. Mrs. Katdare, for the respondent B.M.C. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, & A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J. DATE : AUGUST 8, 2008. PC :- 1. Earlier petition being Writ Petition (L) No. 1395 of 2008 filed by the owner of the vehicle, against the respondents has been dismissed by this Court by an order dated 24th June, 2008, which reads as under- "P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. What we find from the record is that the conduct of the petitioner is absolutely - 2 - fraudulent. Initially he entered into the corporation area by truck bearing No.9449, however, its real truck number was 4449. Thereafter number was changed by applying black substance (Kajal). That truck was seized by the Octroi Officer of the Corporation. The petitioner brought another truck of the same number from another Octroi Naka and paid the octroi. Thereby the petitioner is trying to make out a case that he has paid the octroi. 3. One of the conditions for entertaining the petition under Article 226 is that the petitioner must come with clean hands. The conduct of the petitioner does not inspire confidence. He is not coming before this Court with clean hands. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. In the result, petition is dismissed." 2. Now, the petitioner claims that he is the courier agent who was transporting the goods which were in the vehicle and by the present petition, he is seeking release of the goods. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the aforesaid petition filed by owner of the vehicle transporting - 3 - these goods, was dismissed without entertaining the same, this petition without going into the controversy in the matter be also dismissed. 3. We are of the view that after the goods and vehicles were seized by the respondents, for allegedly violation of the laws, they were bound in terms of law to hold an inquiry and pass appropriate final orders. This has not been done so far. However, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that a show-cause notice has been issued, which has not been replied to by the respondent No.3. 4. According to the respondent government, no notice was given to the petitioner. If the petitioher has any claim, the petitioner may on his own move a representation before the respondents within two weeks from today. We direct the respondents that the matter be decided in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today on receipt of such representation or even otherwise within six weeks from today. 5. In view of aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J.] - 4 - Sd/- [ A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.]