1. In present petition the petitioners have prayed that:-

(A) to quash the order dated 13.6.2012 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 Geologist.

(B) to command the respondent No.1- Geologist to release the seized 13455 MT of Bauxite seized vide seizure memo dated 26.10.2010;

(C) to command the respondent No.1- Geologist to issue the transit pass / delivery challan / NOC for the sale / export of the said 13455 MT of Bauxite;

(D) to stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 13.6.2012 passed by the respondent No.1-Geologist.

(E) to direct pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the respondent No.1-Geologist to release the seized 13455 MT of Bauxite and to issue the necessary transit pass / delivery challan for the sale / export of the said 13455 MT of Bauxite;

(F).....

(G).....

2. The relevant facts involved in and leading to submission of present petition, are that the petitioner, a Limited Company incorporated and registered as such under Companies Act, 1956, is engaged, inter alia, in business of sale and export of various minerals.

2.1 On 18.10.2007 the petitioners submitted an application, in compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 8(1) of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules ) for registration of the designated place / area as place / area for storage of minerals at its establishment at Okha Port.

2.2 The petitioners have claimed that the said application was received by respondent No.1 on 24.10.2007.

2.3 It is alleged that the said application remained pending before the Competent Authority and according to the petitioners it was not attended for long time by the competent authority though Rule 8(5) of the Rules prescribes that the application for Registration should be processed within two months from the date of receipt of the application

2.4 Then, though the Registration was not granted, the petitioner commenced and conducted its business activity and also stored certain mineral (viz. Bauxite) at the plots in question.

2.5 The petitioner, has claimed that it had purchased 13,455 MTs of Bauxite from two companies viz. Orient Abrasives Limited and Carborundum Universal Limited and in May 2008 which it stored on the plots (from May 2008) in respect of which it had applied for registration.

2.6 The petitioner has claimed that it received letters dated 30.7.2008. According to the petitioner the said communication dated 30.7.2008 amounts to order / decision granting registration under Rule 8(1).

2.7 It appears that it came to the notice of the respondent authorities that the petitioner had stored 13,455 MTs of Bauxite without Registration of designated area / place and without complying the conditions and requirements prescribed under the said Rules.

2.8 Therefore, authority issued and served notice dated 23.6.2009 to the petitioners and asked the petitioners to produce the documents mentioned in the said notice.

2.9 On 18.4.2010 the respondent No.1 served a letter to the petitioners alleging that before acceptance of application for registration and without registration / licence, the petitioner had stored Bauxite and had also commenced processing unit and that therefore the application dated 18.10.2007 for registration was rejected. The respondent authority also initiated inquiry against the petitioners pursuant to the communications dated 7.10.2010 and 8.10.2010. Thereafter, by serving seizure memo in Form J on 26.10.2010 the respondent No.1, in exercise of power under Rule 13(3) effected seizure of the said material i.e. 13,455 MT of Bauxite.

2.10 The petitioner has claimed that approximate value of the seized material is about Rs.87,32,295/-. The said action dated 26.10.2010 was followed by notice dated 1.11.2010 restraining the petitioner from recovering the said ma