:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2756 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2756 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2756 OF 2008 Benzy Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2785 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2785 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2785 OF 2008 Akbar Travels of India Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Ms. A. P. Madhuri for the Petitioners. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, GP for the Respondents. CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & S. A. BOBDE , JJ. S. A. BOBDE , JJ. S. A. BOBDE , JJ. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. :2: 2. The learned counsel appearing for the parties referred to a Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 30 of 2005 [Akram Sirajjudin Writ Petition No. 30 of 2005 [Akram Sirajjudin Writ Petition No. 30 of 2005 [Akram Sirajjudin Khan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.]. Khan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.]. Khan v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.]. Both the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Government Pleader categorically state that the above Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2005 would squarely cover the above cases also. Hence we pass the same Order for similar reasons and issue the following directions. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner company submits that the vehicles shall not be plied within Greater Bombay again. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents suggested that for this lapse, petitioner company be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the RTO - respondent No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner company, on instructions, has undertaken to pay Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.2. We direct that on payment of the said amount for each of the vehicle, the Vehicle No. MH-01-L-7575 involved in writ petition (L) No. 2756 of 2008 and Vehicle No. KL.10/T-4959 involved in writ petition (L) No. 2785 of 2008 be released :3: to the petitioner company in both the matters. The petitioner company in both the matters shall also give an undertaking that the vehicle shall not be brought again within Greater Bombay and shall not be plied in the city of Greater Bombay. 4. Both the writ petitions are disposed of in the above terms. 5. The security deposits should be deposited and undertakings be given before the release of vehicles in both the matters. (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)