1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.776 OF 2009 TNT India Private Limited : Petitioners. Versus The State Maharashtra & orders. : Respondents. Mr.Jeetu Motwani i/by PDS Legal for the Petitioners. Mr.A Y Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Mr K N Gaikwad for the BMC Mr. D N Nalawade, GP, for the State. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED : APRIL 20, 2009 P.C. 1. On 17th April 2009 this Court passed a detailed order asking the Corporation to explain under which provision of law the truck in question of the Petitioners is detained in lieu of payment of octroi duty. The grievance of the Petitioners is that even if the goods in question are seized by the Corporation in connection with payment of octroi duty, the Corporation has no power to seize the vehicle in question. Today, the learned senior counsel Shri Sakhare appearing for the Corporation has fairly submitted that it is not possible for him to point out as to whether after seizure of the goods in question, even 2 the vehicle in question can also be seized. However, he submits that the vehicle in question has already been released by the Corporation. Since the Corporation has now released the vehicle in question, it is not necessary to give further direction in this Petition. However, we feel that the Corporation in such cases, can only retain the goods, if it is found that octroi duty is not paid. But there is nothing in the Act to suggest that the Corporation is having any power even to detain the vehicle in connection with non-payment of octroi duty of the goods. We do not find any justification in the argument of the learned counsel for the Corporation that in order to expedite the payment of the Octroi duty the vehicle is retained. Being a public body, the Corporation cannot act contrary to law and will have to follow the proper procedure in this behalf. 2. Since the vehicle in question has been released by the Corporation, it would not be proper to keep the matter pending and it can be disposed of with the direction to the Corporation to follow the proper procedure in law while attaching/retaining the vehicles. 3 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners-Company has sustained a loss of Rs.2000/- per day as the Petitioner had to pay the said amounts to the party from whom the vehicle was hired. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners-Company has sustained a total loss of Rs.72,000/-. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, we do not want to express our opinion. However, a remedy is available to the Petitioners to recover the loss sustained by it if any by filing appropriate civil proceedings in the Civil Court. 4. Subject to the above, the above Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the Corporation is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Petitioners in this behalf. The costs to be paid within two weeks from date. [R.M.SAVANT,J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR,J]