FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6421 OF 2011 "M.S. Warehousing Corporation Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. S.B. Bhosale, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 2nd DECEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow the impugned notification dated 16/10/2005 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. 2] Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has imposed restriction on plying of heavy vehicles in the city during day time. He submits that the petitioner is an organ of the Government dealing in supply of essential commodities/goods to the citizens at large. He submits that by the act of the respondents, the work of supply of essential goods is being jeopardized. he further submits that the respondent is not implementing its circular dated 16/10/2005, wherein, restriction is made inapplicable to the essential services. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6421 OF 2011 "M.S. Warehousing Corporation Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 3] Shri Deshmukh, relies on the order of the Apex Court, in the matter of "Oil and Natural Gas Commission and another Vs. Collector of Central Excise " reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 451, wherein, the Apex Court has that the 2 departments of the Government cannot be permitted to be at logger heads with each other and the matter should be settled amicably. 4] Shri More, learned AGP and Shri Bhosale, who appears in person, vehemently oppose the petition. It is their contention that safety of the citizens should be of paramount importance. They further submit that in any case, there is no restriction on the petitioner to ply the vehicles during night time. Therefore, the grievance on the said count is without any substance. 5] In so far the order of the Apex court placed on record by the learned counsel for petitioner is concerned, the same is only a workable order passed by the Apex Court. What binds this court, is the ratio decidendi laid down by the apex court or a coordinate bench of this court. A particular judgment and order so as to be construed as ratio decidendi, there has to be an enunciation of law, application of the same to the facts of the case before the court. In that view of the matter, the said FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6421 OF 2011 "M.S. Warehousing Corporation Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 judgment would not be any assistance to the case of the petitioner. 6] In any case we find that the two departments/wings of the state are not at loggerheads so as to direct them to settle the dispute amicably. The Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act has issued directions in large public interest and citizen residing in the city. It can be further seen that sufficient breathing time was given to the petitioner, inasmuch as 25 vehicles up to 15th October, 11 and thereafter to make use of light vehicles (viz. 909,609,407 Tempo) for transportation of essential commodities. If the petitioners are so keen of discharging their duty of supplying essential commodities they can very well use light vehicles for that purpose. There is no substance in the petition, the same is dismissed. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-