1 wp3122-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3122 OF 2010 Patel Inn and Travels Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ­­ Ms.Sushama M. Dave, for petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents. ­­ CORAM : V.C.DAGA & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 18 th JANUARY, 2011 P.C: Perused petition. 2] Rule, returnable forthwith. 3] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Pleader for the respondents. 4] This Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Challans made by the R.T.O. Authority from time to time for the alleged breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder. 5] During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to demonstrate that some of the offences under which fine was imposed 2 wp3122-10.sxw were not compoundable, rather they were not punishable and that no fine could have been imposed. She also demonstrated that some of the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner could not have been committed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6] Learned Addl. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, without going in the niceties of legal contentions raised and factual matrix sought to be demonstrated, fairly stated that by consent of the parties, reserving the rights in favour of the respondents, the challans evidenced by receipts annexed to the petition at Page Nos.26 to 64 be set aside. In support of this submission, an Affidavit duly affirmed by Mr.N.K.Patil, Regional Transport Officer, Thane dated 18 th January, 2010 is also filed on record. 7] In the aforesaid view of the mater, all the challans reflected in receipts annexed to the petition at Page Nos.26 to 64 are liable to be set aside by dispensing with the reasons in support of this order, by consent of the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner in affirmation has made an endorsement on the Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents dated 18 th January, 2011 that the petitioner does not want the refund of the fine paid and shall not claim the same in any manner whatsoever. The anxiety of the petitioner is that the R.T.O. Authority should follow the rules of law. 8] In view of the above, all Challans reflected by receipts annexed to the petition at Page Nos.26 to 64 are set aside reserving the respondents’ liberty to proceed as per the provisions of law as may be available to them. 3 wp3122-10.sxw All the rival contentions in that behalf are kept open. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to the costs. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] [V.C.DAGA, J.]