IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.37 OF 2007 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.37 OF 2007 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.37 OF 2007 1. Janhit Manch, through its ) President Bhagvanji Raiyani, ) Kuber Bhuvan, Bajaj Road, Vile ) Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056. ) ) 2. Bhagvanji Raiyani, Kuber Bhavan, ) Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (West), ) Mumbai - 400 056. ) ) 3. Dattaram Kumkar, Indira Nagar ) No.2, Room No.38, V.M. Road, ) Vile Parle (West), ) Mumbai - 400 056. )..Petitioners. V/s. 1. Government of Maharashtra ) through the Principal Secretary ) Dept. of Home Affair (Traffic) ) Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ) ) 2. Transport Commissioner, 4th ) floor, Administration Bldg., ) Near Ambedkar Garden, Bandra ) (East), Mumbai - 400 051. ) ) 3. Regional Transport Officer, ) Mumbai Division, Old Bodigard ) Lane, Tulsi Wadi, Tardeo, ) Mumbai - 400 034. ) ) 4. Regional Transport Officer, ) Thane Division, Opp. Central ) Jail, Thane 401 601. ) ) 5. The Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai ) Municipal Corporation, Near ) C.S.T. Railway Station, ) Mumbai 400 001. ) ) 6. The Commissioner, Thane ) Municipal Corporation, Dr. ) -= : 2 : =- Almeda Road, Chandan Wadi, ) Panchpakhadi, Thane-400 602. )..Respondents. Mr.Bhagwanji Raiyani, petitioner in person. Mr.Niranjan Pandit, A.G.P. for respondent - State. Ms.Shobha Ajitkumar, Advocate for respondent -B.M.C. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. J.P.DEVADHAR, J. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH MARCH, 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH MARCH, 2008. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13TH MARCH, 2008. JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) JUDGMENT (PER J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) 1. This Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’ for short) is filed basically to seek appropriate orders for octroi evasion by vehicle owners in the city of Mumbai. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that pursuant to an article in a Daily Newspaper captioned as "Mumbai struggles to find parking space" the petitioners made enquiries which revealed that during the year 2006-2007, 37182 vehicles were registered in Mumbai and during the same period 90,257 vehicles were registered at Thane. By comparing the population of Mumbai with the population of Thane, the petitioners contend that during the period of 2006-2007, substantial number of vehicles registered at Thane must -= : 3 : =- have been purchased by the residents of Mumbai and the same were registered at Thane with a view to evade the octroi duty. It is the contention of the petitioners that several vehicles registered outside the State of Maharashtra are also regularly used in the City of Mumbai or within Maharashtra thereby causing enormous loss of octroi duty. The petitioners, therefore, seek an order for launching a State wide campaign by setting up special squads for detecting the vehicles registered in the State other than Maharashtra but are continuously used in the City or other parts of the State. 3. On behalf of the respondents, it is contended that the respondents are regularly checking the registration certificates of the vehicles found to be registered outside Mumbai. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the circular dated 29/01/2007 issued by the Transport Commissioner, requiring documents to be filed at the time of registration of vehicles are strictly implemented in the State. It is stated that the documents which are specified in the Central Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder are insisted and accepted as proof of residence or proof of business or office address for registering the vehicles -= : 4 : =- in the name of the owner / buyer. 4. It is further contended that the number of vehicles registered at Mumbai during March, 2006 to February, 2007 is 132457 and not 37182 as wrongly contended by the petitioners. It is further contended that due to the rapid industrial growth beyond the City of Mumbai, residents of Mumbai having their industrial establishments outside Mumbai register their vehicles either at Mumbai or at Thane, as is convenient to them which is permissible in law. It is submitted that the respondents are taking appropriate steps to check the registration of vehicles so as to detect evasion of octroi duty and hence no order need be passed in the present petition. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the present PIL which is bereft of any particulars is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed in limine. Merely because large number of vehicles are registered at Thane, it cannot be presumed that the said vehicles are purchased by the residents of Mumbai and registered at Thane with a view to evade payment of octroi duty. In fact, the very basis of the PIL that the vehicles registered at Thane are more than the vehicles registered at Mumbai during -= : 5 : =- 2006-2007 is proved to be erroneous. The respondents have demonstrated that the number of vehicles registered at Mumbai during the period from March, 2006 to February, 2007 is more than the vehicles registered at Thane and the same is not disputed by the petitioners. 6. Apart from the above, the PIL does not disclose any particulars or instances to show that the residents of Mumbai have been getting their vehicles registered outside Mumbai with a view to evade octroi duty. The only instance given in the petition is that of the petitioner No.2, who is a builder residing at Mumbai and has his vehicle registered at Thane. The explanation given is that the petitioner No.2 is at present engaged in the construction activity at Vasai and, therefore, he has got his vehicle registered at Thane. It is further contended that once the construction work at Vasai is completed, the petitioner No.2 would purchase a new vehicle and get the same registered at Mumbai. Thus, according to the petitioners, registration of their vehicle outside Mumbai is bonafide, however, the petitioners believe that the registration of vehicles outside Mumbai by various vehicle owners who are residents of Mumbai is with a view evade octroi duty. There is no basis for -= : 6 : =- such presumption. In any event, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondents that steps are taken regularly to monitor the movement of the vehicles. Without any material on record to show that the respondents are negligent or have failed in their duty to check the evasion of octroi duty, it is not possible to grant any relief in the present PIL. However, we do hope that the respondents shall continue to keep strict vigil in detecting the cases relating to evasion of octroi duty. 7. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the PIL and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE J.P.DEVADHAR, J J.P.DEVADHAR, J J.P.DEVADHAR, J.