Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 17]

Gujarat High Court

Bhagirathsinh Chhatrasinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 25 May, 2017

Author: A.J. Shastri

Bench: A.J. Shastri

                 C/SCA/10178/2017                                             ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10178 of 2017
         ================================================================
                 BHAGIRATHSINH CHHATRASINH JADEJA....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
         ================================================================
         Appearance:
         MS.NAMRATA J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
         MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 1
         ================================================================
          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI

                                    Date : 25/05/2017
                                     ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Considering   the   issue   involved   in   the   petition  and with consent of the learned counsel appearing for  the   parties,   the   matter   is   taken   up   for   its   final  disposal forthwith. 

3. It   appears   that   the   Vehicle   bearing   its   Registration   No.GJ­12­BT­5960,   which   is   of   the   ownership   of   the   petitioner,   came   to   be   seized   under   the   provisions   of   the   Gujarat   Mineral   (Prevention   of   Illegal Mining, Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   Rules).   It   further   appears   that   the   petitioner   has   thereafter   approached   Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 1 of 3 Created On Thu May 25 23:40:47 IST 2017 C/SCA/10178/2017 ORDER the competent authority and made oral requests several   times,   however,   as   the   requests   were   not   considered,   the   petitioner   has   filed   an   application   dated   22.05.2017, which is pending for its consideration.

4. Learned   counsel   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 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  counsels   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).

5. In view of the aforesaid, 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   Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu May 25 23:40:47 IST 2017 C/SCA/10178/2017 ORDER petitioner   shall   execute   a   bond,   as   per   Form­L   as   required under the Rules. The competent authority shall   take   such   decision   within   a   period   of   7   (seven)   days   from the date of receipt of this order.

6. It   is,   however,   clarified   that   the   proceedings,   which   have   been   or   which   may   be   initiated  against   the   petitioner in respect of penalty recoverable under the   Mines   and   Minerale   (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.

7. It   is,   however,   made   clear   that   this   Court   has  not expressed anything on merits of the prayers prayed  for in the petition.

8. With   the   above   observation   and   direction,   this  petition   stands   disposed   of.   Direct   service   is  permitted.

(A.J. SHASTRI, J.) Gaurav+ Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu May 25 23:40:47 IST 2017