1 wp6649.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6649 OF 2011 Liladhar Pasoo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Ulhas Kerkar i/b. Mr.Victor K. Fernandes for the petitioners. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 05, 2011. P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 waives service. Heard the petition finally on merits by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners are seeking a direction to the respondents to release the private motor vehicle belonging to the petitioners bearing registration no.MH-06-S-7019 which was seized and detained by the respondent no.3 on 25.7.2011. 2 wp6649.11 3. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is identical to the one involved in Writ Petition No.6877 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 2.9.2010, a copy of which is annexed at exh.`J' to the petition. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be disposed of in view of the said order and appropriate direction to the respondents may kindly be given accordingly to release the motor vehicle in question. 4. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3 does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter, including the fact that the issue stands covered by the decisions of this Court, including the one cited by the petitioners. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the parties and perused the order dated 2.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.6877 of 2010. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is identical to the one involved in Writ Petition No.6877 of 2010 and is squarely covered by the said decision and, therefore, it will be appropriate to dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of the relevant observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgement which read thus:- 3 wp6649.11 “7. In the circumstances, petition is allowed by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- with Respondent No.3 within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.3 shall in turn deposit the amount with the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. The petitioner shall also file an undertaking before respondent No.3 that the petitioner shall not ply the vehicle within the limits of Greater Mumbai. Upon the deposit of the aforesaid amount and on filing of the undertaking by the petitioner, respondent No.3 shall release the vehicle only for taking it out of the limits of Greater Mumbai. 8. We make it clear that for other violations mentioned in the checking report dated 16th August 2010, it will be open to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action regarding the said violations. This order is passed only in the context of the breach of the orders of this Court 4 wp6649.11 prohibiting plying vehicles within the Municipal limits of Greater Mumbai which are more than eight years old. ” 6. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has not disputed that the decision of this Court dated 2.9.2010 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In these circumstances, we dispose of the petition in terms of the order dated 2.9.2010, particularly in view of the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order. 7. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (R.Y. GANOO,J.)