Gita Gopi,J. - (1.)Respondent No.3 herein is served. However, none appears on his behalf.
(2.)By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the respondent-authority to release the muddamal vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-27-CC-5566, which was seized in connection with the First Information Report registered under the provisions of the the Gujarat Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on suitable terms and conditions.
(3.)Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a financial institution, which has financed the vehicle in question for respondent no.3 herein. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the vehicle in question is under hypothecation with the petitioner Company and that the respondent no.3 has not repaid the amount of loan.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the muddamal vehicle has been detained in connection with the prohibition case committed by the respondent no.3 and that if interim custody of the vehicle is not given, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, as the muddamal vehicle would get substantially damaged by the time the trial gets concluded and probably, by that time, the value of the muddamal vehicle may also become 'Nil' as the vehicle is lying under the open sky in different climatic conditions. It was further submitted that this Court has ordered release of muddamal vehicles even in instances under section 98(2) of the amended Act and hence, the Court may consider the case of the petitioner since this may fall under section 99 of the Act. It was, accordingly, urged that this Court may direct release of the muddamal vehicle in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on suitable terms and conditions.

3.2 Reliance was placed upon several decisions rendered by the coordinate Benches of this Court to submit that even after considering the rigor of section 99 of the Act, this Court has allowed the muddamal vehicles to be released in favour of the petitioner therein.

3.3 The attention of the Court was invited to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat , 2003 AIR(SC) 638, wherein the Apex Court ordered release of muddamal vehicle seized under the provisions of the Act while lamenting the scenario of a number of vehicles having been kept unattended and becoming scrap within the police station premises or at any other designated places.