Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: continuing guarantee in Mansukh Alias Ravji Gorasiya vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 April, 2021Matching Fragments
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. These two appeals raise similar questions of law and facts, as such, have been taken up together.
2. Letters Patent Appeal No.882 of 2020 has been filed assailing the correctness of the CAV order dated 14.10.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.1628 of 2020 which is interim in nature whereby the writ petitionerappellant was permitted to get the vehicle in question released after furnishing necessary continuing bank guarantee as shown in notice FormJ and on fulfillment of other requirements.
3. Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2020 has been filed assailing the correctness of the interim order dated 11.09.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.8809 of 2020 wherein again the learned Single Judge directed the Authorized Officer to release the vehicle after obtaining necessary continuing bank guarantee as shown in notice FormJ and on fulfillment of other requirements by the petitioner.
7. In both the writ petitions, interim orders were granted to the extent that the vehicles may be released upon furnishing continuing bank guarantee and fulfilling other requirements as per the rules. The petitioners were aggrieved by the said interim orders which imposed the condition of furnishing a continuing bank guarantee as, according to them, the learned Single Judge vide final judgment and order dated 26.08.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020 in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara Vs. State of Gujarat had held that if no prosecution is launched within 45 days of the seizure of the vehicle, there would be no question of furnishing bank guarantee and the detention of the vehicle thereafter would be illegal and as such liable to be released unconditionally. It is also the ground taken by the appellants that in a large number of cases, the vehicles have been released by interim orders without insisting for bank guarantee. In the above backdrop, the present two appeals have been preferred praying for release of the vehicles without insisting for Bank Guarantee.
9. Mr. Maulik Nanavati and Ms. Kruti Shah, learned counsels for the appellants have made the following submissions: i. The learned Single Judge committed error in imposing the condition of furnishing continuing bank guarantee while passing interim order for release of the vehicles as the same was in direct conflict with the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 26.08.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020 inasmuch as 45 days time from the date of seizure had long expired in both the appeals and no written complaint was filed before the Court of Sessions, as such, the learned Single Judge ought to have followed the ratio laid down in the judgment dated 26.08.2020. According to them, the learned Single Judge's did not respect the judicial discipline in not following the earlier judgment dated 26.08.2020.