1 wp2350-10 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2350 OF 2010 R.V. Bhasin ... Petitioner. V/s. The Municipal Commissioner & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. R.V. Bhasin party in person. Mr. S.S. Pakale for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP., for respondent no. 3. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 6th JANUARY, 2011 P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner who is appearing as party-in-person has prayed for appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent Municipal Corporation to pay to the petitioner the loss of Rs. 22.00 lacs suffered by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he was possessing a motor car being ADX 9392 (Volks Wagen Micro Bus German Make) which was taken by the Corporation illegally on 21.02.1991 which was parked below the house of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the vehicle was towed away by the Corporation by the crane in illegal manner and subsequently the vehicle was not given back to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle was sold away by the Corporation officials illegally for which he has filed a complaint of theft which was not entertained by the Magistrate. 2 wp2350-10 However, the criminal court acquitted the concerned accused on the ground that mens rea was not established. It is pointed out by the party in person that against the said acquittal order, an application for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner being Criminal Application No. 1840 of 2007. The order of the learned Single Judge passed in the said Criminal Application is produced on record which is dated 12.8.2008. The learned Single Judge rejected the said application against which the petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the said leave petition while observing that if there is any wrongful seizure and sale of the car, the remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition on the criminal side being Criminal Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2009. The Division Bench of this Court wherein one of us (Sayed, J. ) was a member, dismissed the said petition on 18.11.2009. The order of the Division Bench reads as under :- “Heard. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-in person, who is a practising advocate of this Court, wherein the following prayers are made : “(a) That the Hon’ble Court by its Order in the form of a Writ or an Order in the nature of its Writ directs through its mandamus or any other similar writ or order, the Respondents to pay the demanded loss of Rs. 21.00 lac or such other sum as may be appear just and proper to it to the Petitioner. This will serve the cause of real justice.” 3 wp2350-10 2. We are afraid that it will not be possible for this Court to entertain such a petition as this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction will not be able to grant reliefs as sought for in the petition after the Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed on 16th April, 1997 and the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 12th August, 2008, has been dismissed by the Supreme Court. 3. The petitioner submits that the Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition by making observation, “Learned Counsel states that the car in question has been sold and the money has been appropriated. There has been no wrongful seizure and sale of the car in question. The remedy of the petitioner lies somewhere else. Not to prosecute the respondents for the offence of theft.” The observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court does not say that the remedy lies before the High Court and the petitioner can invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the nature of reliefs sought for by him. 4. Therefore, we dismiss the writ petition.” 2. The petitioner thereafter has filed a petition on the civil side i.e. the present writ petition and has prayed similar reliefs though in the earlier petition the demand was 4 wp2350-10 to the tune of Rs. 21.00 lacs and here it is Rs. 22.00 lacs. The party-in-person however submits that since the petition was dismissed on technical ground and since the earlier petition was filed on the criminal side and since the present writ petition is filed on the civil side, in order to do substantial justice, this Court may entertain the present petition. 3. It is required to be noted that in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner party-in-person the prayer made by the petitioner is already incorporated by the Division Bench in its order. A writ petition either on the civil side or on the criminal side can be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition has observed that “it will not be possible for this Court to entertain such a petition” as a coordinate Bench, this Court cannot entertain this petition as this Court cannot sit in appeal over the order passed by another Division Bench. It is not a matter of technicality and/or any procedural aspect. It cannot be said that it is only a technical or procedural defect. Since the very similar petition is rejected by the earlier Bench, this Court being a coordinate Bench, cannot entertain a writ petition of a similar nature and this Court is bound by judicial comity and judicial discipline over and above the question of maintenance of similar petition. The remedy available to the petitioner, party-in-person is to challenge the earlier order passed by the Division Bench before the Supreme Court. This Court is bound by the earlier order passed by the earlier Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2009. So far as the merits of the writ petition is concerned, Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation, states that the Corporation is not aware as to what happened to the vehicle. He further submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a registered owner of the vehicle. However, since the petition is not maintainable, it is not necessary for us 5 wp2350-10 to examine the merits of the case and it is clarified that we are not examining the case on merit. Subject to these observations, the petition is dismissed. 4. At this stage, the petitioner - party in person submits that the petitioner may consider to go to Supreme Court against the order passed by the earlier Division Bench. It is for the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings as deemed fit. (A.A.SAYED, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.