Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Vikrambhai Narsangbhai Gohil vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 19 June, 2015

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

         C/SCA/9872/2015                                         ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9872 of 2015
===========================================================
          VIKRAMBHAI NARSANGBHAI GOHIL....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
             STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
                     Date : 19/06/2015
                                 ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the respondents.

2. Facts of the case as well as controversy is in narrow compass. The petition could be therefore taken up for final consideration today, with request and consent of both the learned advocates appearing for the parties.

2.1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent authorities.

3. The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to release the vehicle being Truck along with Dumber No. GJ-1 CY-2612 which is of the ownership of the petitioner as stated by him. The Certificate of Registration is produced on record. It is the case of the petitioner that on 02.06.2015, the said vehicle came to be seized by respondent No.2-Police Sub Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/9872/2015 ORDER Inspector on the ground that the vehicle was found overloaded with the mineral ordinary sand of 17 metric ton. The petitioner's case is that despite several requests, the authority is not releasing the said vehicle, even though the authority has power to release the vehicle under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005. The truck is the source of income for the petitioner. The petitioner further submitted that he is ready to even execute a bond as required under the Rules.

4. Learned AGP submitted that the seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner is in accordance with law, and Rule 17 of the Rules permitted seizure of the property. It was further submitted that the request of the petitioner for release of the truck would be considered only if the Rules permit and the petitioner satisfies the authority in accordance with the Rules.

5. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner is about non-release of the vehicle in question detained by the respondent-Mining Authority. Rule 18 of the aforesaid Rules gives power to the authorized officer to release the property seized. The Rule reads as under, "18. Power to release property seized on bonds: The authorised officer who has seized any vehicles or other conveyance under rule-13 and where a report of such seizure has been made to the officers authorise by Commissioner under sub-rule (3) of that rule may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the officers authorised by the Commissioner having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure has been made."

5.1 Thereafter, by Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) (Amendment) Rules, 2005, the aforesaid Rule 18 is amended and it is provided that in the said Rule for the words "may release the same on the execution by the owner there of a bond", the words "may release the same on the execution by the owner there of a bond in form L" shall be substituted. A Notification dated 12.02.2015 was shown by learned AGP which further amends the Rules to the effect that after Form "K", new Form "L" is inserted prescribing format for execution of bond.

6. In view of above, when the Rule empowers the authorized officer to release the vehicle on condition and the petitioner is ready to comply with condition of execution of bond, etc., limited relief to the petitioner could be given by directing the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner has shown readiness to comply with the requirement of Rules and execution of bond in Form "L" in support of his prayer. The same is required to be examined by the authority concerned. The petitioner has already made application/affidavit (Annexure-C, Page 15 along with the petition).

6.1 Reference may be made to the orders passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1168 of 2012, Special Civil Application Nos. 12272 of 2012 and 8170 of 2015 and other similar orders passed in various matters relegating the petitioner to the competent authority Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/9872/2015 ORDER and requiring the competent authority to consider the case of the petitioner in light of Rule 18 of the Rules.

7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of by directing the respondents and in particular the competent authority to consider and decide the application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle being Truck along with Dumber No. GJ-1 CY-2612 under Rule 18 of the aforementioned Rules, further considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to execute a bond as per Form "L" (Amended on 12.02.2015) as per Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) (Amendment) Rules, 2005. The question of release of vehicle shall be considered and decided by the authority in accordance with law and Rules expeditiously and within seven days from the date of receipt of this order.

8. It is clarified however that the proceedings which have been or which may be initiated against the petitioner in respect of penalty recoverable under the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 and Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 framed thereunder for recovery of penalty, shall continue against the petitioner and the authorities are free to act in respect of the said proceedings in accordance with law.

9. This Court has not expressed anything on merits of the prayer of the petitioner.

10. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.) chandrashekhar Page 5 of 5