Judgment · High Court · 2026

C]By issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ ordirection in the like nature, thereby direct therespondent authorities to act in accordance withthe representation dated 02.03.2026 addressedby present petitioner to the concerned respondentauthorities to release the vehicles i.e. HyundaiIndia Motor Ltd. Creta 1.4 CRDI S havingregistration No. MH-14-GH-9277 and Tata MotorsLtd. Company’s 1618/36 Tipper bearing itsregistration No.MH-16-AY-9109 forthwith in favourof the present petitioner in the light of order BelowExh-1 dated 25.02.2026 passed by Ld. JMFC,Parner in Crim. M.A. No.26/2026 with furtherdirection to initiate proper inquiry against theconcerned earring officers who are responsible forsuch inaction and delaying process of actualrelease of vehicle.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thevehicles of the petitioner viz: Hyundai India Motor Ltd. Creta1.4 CRDI S having registration No. MH-14-GH-9277 and TataMotors Ltd. Company’s 1618/36 Tipper bearing its registrationNo. MH-16-AY-9109 (hereinafter called as “the said vehicles”)were seized pursuant to F.I.R. bearing Crime No. 0038/2026registered with Parner Police Station for the offencespunishable under Sections 109, 140(3), 132, 121(1), 303(2),324(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, 2023(for the brevity, hereinafter referred to as “BNS 2023”) and (3) 938 Cri.WP-396.2026.odtunder Sections 3 and 15 of the Environment Protection Act,1986. It is further contended that the petitioner preferredCrim. M.A. No. 26/2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate(First Class) (hereinafter called as “learned J.M.F.C.”), Parnerfor release of the said vehicles. The learned J.M.F.C. vide orderdated 25.02.2026, directed the police authorities to release thesaid vehicles on certain terms and conditions. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner would further submit that despitethere being an order passed by the learned J.M.F.C., therespondents are not releasing the said vehicles. He thereforesubmits that the writ petition deserves to be allowed bydirecting the respondents to release the said vehicles.3.Per contra, learned A.P.P. would submit that though thelearned J.M.F.C. has directed the police authorities to releasethe said vehicles, however pursuant to the action initiated bythe respondent Revenue Authorities under Section 48(7) of theMaharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for the sake of brevityhereinafter referred to as “MLR Code”), the said vehiclescannot be released. He would further submit that the Revenueauthority has also passed an order under Section 48(7) of theMLR Code thereby imposing penalty on the petitioner to thetune of Rs. 3,20,000/-. He would further submit that the saidvehicles have been seized by Revenue Authority by resorting to (4) 938 Cri.WP-396.2026.odtthe provisions of MLR Code and if at all the petitioner isaggrieved, the petitioner may avail alternate remedy asavailable under MLR Code. He therefore urged that the writpetition deserves to be dismissed.4.After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned APP, we find that admittedly there is an orderpassed by the learned J.M.F.C. dated 25.02.2026 in Cri.M.A.No. 26/2026 thereby directing release of the said vehicles. Wefind that if the respondents contend that penalty underSection 48(7) of MLR Code to the tune of Rs. 3,20,000/- hasbeen imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner can at the mostbe saddled with such penalty and as far as release of the saidvehicles is concerned, on recovery of the said penalty, the saidvehicles could have been released. Be that as it may, we findthat the said vehicles cannot be kept idle and those need to bereleased on petitioner’s depositing 50% of the penalty imposedby the Revenue authority.5.This Court in the case of Tanvir Kadir Shaikh vs TheState of Maharashtra and others decided on 02.04.2024 inWrit Petition No.302 of 2026, has already taken a view that inthe light of the order passed by competent criminal courtthereby directing the Authorities to release the vehicle, Revenue Authorities, unless resorting to the provisions of (5) 938 Cri.WP-396.2026.odtSection 48(8) (1) and (2) of MLR Code, cannot retain thevehicle. This Court however has directed the petitioner thereinto deposit 50% of the penalty imposed on him.6.In the present case, admittedly the Revenue Authoritieshave imposed penalty of Rs. 3,20,000/- on the petitioner. Wetherefore direct the respondents Authorities to release the saidvehicles of the petitioner subject to petitioner’s depositing 50%of the penalty imposed on him, within two weeks from today.We make it clear that deposit of 50% of the amount of penaltywill be condition precedent for release of the said vehicles. Wemake it clear that if the petitioner chose to challenge the orderof imposition of penalty, the amount deposited pursuant tothis order, will be taken into consideration by the appellateauthority as and when appeal would be decided. In case thepetitioner choose not to file appeal challenging imposition ofpenalty, the respondent Authorities are at liberty to recover theremaining penalty.7.With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of.(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGEJUDGEVD_Dhirde