JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for Respondent-State waives service. Heard finally, by consent of the parties, in view of urgency shown. 2. As the common issues are involved and as the submissions are based upon the common order passed by the Respondent-Officer, we are inclined to dispose of the present Petitions by common judgment. 3. The Petitioners are the transporters of the goods. They are owner of the vehicles in question, but not the owner of the goods involved. For the same vehicles and the goods, this is a second round of litigation and whereby they have prayed to direct the Respondent-Corporation to release the vehicles and the seized goods. 4. Based upon earlier order passed by this Court dated 21 October 2013, the Respondent-Corporation heard the Petitioners, basically on the issue of release of vehicles, as well as, the goods and by a common speaking order dated 26 November 2013, before concluding issues, directed to furnish the names of the importers alongwith the original documents immediately so that further order can be passed and detained vehicles could be released. 5. The Petitioners however, instead of furnishing those details, re-agitated the issue in writing and even issued alleged show cause notice under Section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act-1888 (for short, “the MMC Act”) for claiming damages for the alleged illegal detention since 6 June 2013. The Respondent-Corporation also in view of the above position, not accepted the Demand Drafts so forwarded by the Petitioners and returned the same, as they were unwilling to accept the submission so made by the Petitioners without providing the details so asked for. 6. The Petitioners filed these Petitions in above backgrounds in January 2014. The Respondents-Corporation filed affidavit dated 25 February 2014 and resisted all the contentions, as well as, the prayers of the Petitioners, also on the ground that they never accepted the case, as well as, the contention of the Petitioners and on the contrary documents so submitted at various stages are different in nature on every count. The documents so filed and the value of the goods so declared at Naka at first instance, were also vary as they have filed more new documents after the earlier order was passed by this Court, that also resulted into variation in value fixed by the Municipal Authorities after joint inspection of the goods. 7. The documents so filed and the value of the goods so declared at Naka at first instance, were also vary as they have filed more new documents after the earlier order was passed by this Court, that also resulted into variation in value fixed by the Municipal Authorities after joint inspection of the goods. 7. By the impugned order, by giving detailed reasons, the Respondents-authority pointed out and made clear findings that the Petitioners never approached the High Court with clean hands and there are gross variation between the documents which they have declared initially and later point of time and there are clear finding given that those documents are not genuine and not reliable as the same are fabricated and bogus. The demand so made, in view of the rules and the authority, cannot be overlooked and so also the findings given against the Petitioners. 8. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that this power so used and utilized by the Respondent-Corporation is impermissible mode as the Respondent/Octroi Department are entitled to claim at the most higher Octroi duty. They are accordingly willing to deposit the same. This submission also already taken note of by the Department and in fact as recorded above, returned the Demand Drafts. The question is not of payment and/or recovery of Octroi duty from the Petitioners, who are admittedly not the owner of the property/goods in question. At this stage, the detailed inquiry/investigation is necessary to see and check and/or control the import/transfer of goods by evading the octroi. In the present case, as recorded above, and considering the reasons and the documents so filed by the Petitioners from time to time and also for the reason that there is a clear finding that those documents are fabricated and/or false and as there is gross variation between the documents which submitted initially at the octroi Naka and those filed subsequently in the Court. The direction, without taking final decision as this stage but to furnish the names of the importers along with the documents, cannot be stated to be without jurisdiction and/or authority. 9. For the above reasons, pending the said decision and the issues, we are not inclined to entertain the present Petitions specifically with regard to the release of goods in question. 9. For the above reasons, pending the said decision and the issues, we are not inclined to entertain the present Petitions specifically with regard to the release of goods in question. Let the Respondents-authority complete the investigation and/or complete the procedure and pass final order, subject to Petitioners furnishing the details so required. No case is made out by the Petitioners to entertain the present Petition in view of above to release the goods in question. 10. So far as the vehicles are concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, on instructions, and also of affidavit, expressed their willingness to release the vehicles subject to completion of the formalities as required. The Petitioners are at liberty to take steps accordingly. The Respondents to pass order on the issue of vehicles, in accordance with law. So far as the issue with regard to the goods in question, for the above reasons, at this stage of the proceedings, we are declined to entertain the present Petitions. However, this in no way conclude and/or decide the issue which the Respondents authority wants to adjudicate after receipt of the documents/details, so asked for by them from the Petitioners. The Petitioners are at liberty to challenge and/or to take appropriate steps, once the final order is passed as referred above. The Respondents authority to take action. 11. For the above reasons, all these Petitions are dismissed, with liberty.