Bombay High Court: The present petition raised the issue of the dumping/parking/storing of vehicles seized by the Officer-In-Charge of the Police Stations occupying public roads, streets, and/or the surroundings of the police stations in Mumbai. The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., directed the Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic Division, and Inspector General of Police/State of Maharashtra to prepare a concrete mechanism regarding the vehicles being immediately taken to the appropriate place after they were seized, and that the vehicles did not encroach on roads, pavements/footpaths or were parked/stored in the vicinity of the police stations in whose jurisdiction they had seized.
It was stated that the vehicles were parked/dumped on open private lands and such parking/storing of vehicles apart from being an ‘eyesore’ considering neat and clean surroundings aspect, created insurmountable public inconvenience.
The Court noted that no concrete policy was prepared either to be implemented for Greater Mumbai and/or the State of Maharashtra. The Court opined that in Mumbai, open spaces were not available and was a major constraint, hence parking/dumping of seized vehicles could not be resorted causing a serious inconvenience/nuisance to the public at large. The Court also noted that several police stations were inundated with such seized vehicles being dumped/parked for years together outside the police stations encroaching on public roads, which were essential public amenities to be enjoyed and utilized by public at large.
The Court opined that for a city like Mumbai or any other city which encompasses constraints on open spaces, encroachments on footpath, pavements etc. which made the life of pedestrians miserable and added to it, were the problems of illegal parking on open public spaces, pavements/footpaths and in the surroundings of the police stations.
The Court noted that the Municipal Corporation did not attend to encroachments by the police stations although it was on public roads and footpaths merely because these vehicles were something to do with the police station. The Court also opined that when pedestrians themselves could not normally move on roads and footpaths, the Traffic Department could not remain a mute spectator as the menace of parking and dumping of vehicles in the surroundings of the police stations and/or on private lands, needed to be something of the past.
The Court opined that parking vehicles, cars, trucks, etc. in police stations’ vicinity was also a safety and security concern and thus it was imperative that the Traffic Department would avoid parking vehicles near the police stations.
The Court opined that the Additional Commissioner of Traffic, Mumbai and Greater Mumbai, needed to gather substantial information regarding all the police stations in respect of unlawful parking/dumping of the seized vehicles by such police stations in Greater Mumbai, and a report needed was to be submitted in that respect. The Court noted that on 13-4-2023, the co-ordinate Bench passed an order observing that no policy was available in respect to the seized vehicles lying/parked at different public places and in the vicinity of the police stations.
The Court directed the Additional Commissioner of Police, Traffic Division, and Inspector General of Police/State of Maharashtra to deliberate on such issue and prepare a concrete mechanism regarding the vehicles being immediately taken to the appropriate place after they were seized, and that such vehicles did not encroach on roads, pavements/footpaths or being parked/stored in the vicinity of the police stations in whose jurisdiction they had seized.
The Court stated that a policy as per the order dated 13-4-2023 be framed under the guidance of the Principal Secretary, Home, and the same be placed before this Court.
The matter would next be listed on 29-4-2025.
[Marathon Maxima Co. Op. Housing Society v. Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai, Writ Petition No. 1545 of 2023, decided on 8-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Seema Chopda for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: Jyoti Mhatre i/b. Komal Punjabi for Respondents1, 5, and 6; P. H. Kantharia, GP for Respondents 2 to 4; Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little & Co. for Respondent 7.
