1. Heard Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Rohan Yagnik, learned AGP for the respondent.
2. The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
"17.
(A).......
(B) Your Lordship may kindly issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction to the respondent no.2 to release the goods truck no. GJ-1-BT-8977 and the goods loaded in the truck no. GJ-1-BT-8977 forthwith.
(C) Your Lordship may be pleased to quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 1.6.2012 issued by the respondent no.2.
(D).......
(E)......."
3. So far as the relief prayed for in paragraph No.17(C) is concerned the petitioner has prayed that show cause notice dated 1.6.2012 may be set aside.
4. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter at the stage of show cause notice.
5. The petitioner may submit reply and appropriate decision will be taken by the authority in accordance with law after considering petitioner's reply in response to the show cause notice dated 1.6.2012.
6. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision then it will be open to the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings in accordance with the provisions under the Act before the competent Forum. However as mentioned above the Court is not inclined to exercise prerogative jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of show cause notice, more particularly because it is not even petitioner's case that the show cause notice is issued without jurisdiction and / or it is issued by the officer who is not competent authority.
7. So far as the relief prayed for in paragraph No.17(B) is concerned leaned AGP has submitted that the vehicle was found carrying overload however the respondent authority has not detained the vehicle of the petitioner.
8. On this count the learned AGP referred to the communication dated 5.6.2012 whereby the petitioner was conveyed to complete the procedure mentioned in the said communication dated 5.6.2012, however the petitioner refused to receive the said communication and / or to acknowledge the receipt of the said communication.
9. Learned AGP has also submitted that in view of the irregularity and breach of Rules committed by the petitioner the licence is suspended for 90 days however the said decision is not the subject matter of present petition i.e. the order suspending licence is not challenged by the petitioner.
10. He also submitted that actually it is on account of the request made by the petitioner vide letter dated 4.5.2012 that the petitioner has been permitted to park the vehicle at the address mentioned by the petitioner in the communication dated 4.5.2012 and accordingly the vehicle is parked at the place suggested by the petitioner but it is not detained by the competent authority.
11. In view of the said submission by learned AGP any other order or direction is not required to be made more particularly because the decision of the competent authority of suspending licence for 90 days is not matter of challenge in present petition. Learned AGP has also clarified that respondent authority has not refused permission to the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle after completing the prescribed procedure.
With the aforesaid clarification the petition stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top