Anirudhsinh Pravinsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 4 December, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 180]

Gujarat High Court

Anirudhsinh Pravinsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 4 December, 2015

Bench: R.M.Chhaya

              C/SCA/20029/2015                                                  ORDER



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20029 of 2015
         ==========================================================
                    ANIRUDHSINH PRAVINSINH JADEJA....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus
                       STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         MS.NAMRATA J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR MANAN MEHTA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
         RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================
                CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
                                   Date : 04/12/2015
                                    ORAL ORDER

1. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

2. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the State Government authorities. Considering the issue involved in the petition and with consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for its final hearing forthwith.

3. It appears that the vehicle bearing registration No.GJ10 TV4129, which is of the ownership of the petitioner, came to be seized under the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 05 02:15:23 IST 2015 C/SCA/20029/2015 ORDER (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It further appears that the petitioner has thereafter approached the competent authority and made oral requests several times, however, as the requests were not considered, the petitioner has filed an application dated 1.12.2015, which is pending for its consideration.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner restricts this petition only to direct respondent No.2 authority to decide the pending application dated 1.12.2015 filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Rules.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order dated 19.06.2015 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Anjaria) in the case of Vikrambhai Narsangbhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. rendered in Special Civil Application No.9872 of 2015, wherein this Court directed the Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 05 02:15:23 IST 2015 C/SCA/20029/2015 ORDER concerned competent authority to decide the application moved by the petitioner therein within a period of seven days. On examining the issue involved in this petition and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the issue involved in this petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Vikrambhai Narsangbhai Gohil (supra).

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The competent authority is hereby directed to consider and decide the aforesaid application of the petitioner for release of the vehicle in question under Rule 18 of the Rules. The petitioner shall execute a bond, as per FormL as required under the Rules. The competent authority shall take such decision within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of this order.

7. It is, however, clarified that the proceedings, Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 05 02:15:23 IST 2015 C/SCA/20029/2015 ORDER 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. It would be open for the petitioner to approach the RTO authorities for the other prayers which are prayed for. If any such request is made, the same shall be considered by the RTO authority in accordance with law.

8. This Court has not expressed anything on merits of the prayers prayed for in the petition. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.

(R.M.CHHAYA, J.) mrp Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Dec 05 02:15:23 IST 2015

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court