gopi 1 nm-302-11 in w.p.1762-99 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.302 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1762 OF 1999 Bombay Environmental Action Group ..Petitioner V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ....Respondents. And M/s.N.V. Kharote ...Applicant Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, for the Applicant. Mr. S.K. Nair, “A” Panel Counsel for State. Mr. Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Advocate with S.S. Ghosh i/b. Hariani & Co., for the Petitioner. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 8 November 2011. P.C. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the applicant’s vehicle Tempo (four wheeler) bearing registration No.MH-12-AR-7931 was seized by the RTO only on the ground that it strayed within the limits of City of Mumbai and that it violated the ban on plying commercial vehicles within the city of Mumbai which are more than 8 years old. It is stated that the 8 years period had expired only 20 days before the date on which the vehicle was seized by the RTO and that ever since the seizure of vehicle on 24 February 2011 the applicant has been unable to carry on his business. It is submitted that the applicant gopi 2 nm-302-11 in w.p.1762-99 has sustained substantial loss of income, apart from the damage which has resulted to the vehicle, on account of the vehicle remaining idle for the last almost 9 months. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties subject to the condition that the applicant shall file an undertaking before this Court within two weeks from today that the above mentioned vehicle shall not be put to use in Greater Mumbai and that the applicant shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Regional Transport Office, Tardeo, Mumbai within two weeks from today, the respondent No.8-Regional Transport Office, Tardeo, Mumbai, shall release the above mentioned vehicle of the applicant upon complying with both the above conditions. 3. It is clarified that the amount required to be paid by the applicant is restricted to Rs.10,000/- in view of the fact that the age of the vehicle of 8 years limit had expired only 20 days before the date of seizure of the vehicle and also on the ground that the applicant has not been able to ply the vehicle for the last about 9 months. Notice of Motion is disposed of in the above terms. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)