Point of Law: respondent authorities have failed to justify the reason for seizure of the truck in question. When the respondent authorities have failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 2017, we are of the view that this is fit case where the action of seizure of the truck in question taken by the respondent authorities is required to be quashed and set aside and direction is required to be given to the respondent authorities to release the truck in question forthwith.

ORDER :

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the show cause notice dated 15.06.2020 issued by respondent No.2 and order dated 24.07.2020 passed by the respondent No.2. Petitioner has also prayed that the respondents be directed to release the vehicle being truck No. GJ05BZ4044 of the petitioner.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nitesh Jain for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondents.

3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Jain appearing for the petitioner has contended that in an identical matter this Court has passed an order on 21.10.2020 in Special Civil Application No.11037 of 2020, by which, the vehicle bearing registration No.GJ05BZ7237 for which also FIR is filed on 13.06.2020 before Jetpur Pavi Police Station, copy of which is placed on record at page 16/A of the compilation, has been released on certain terms and conditions. Learned advocate has referred the said order, copy of which is placed on record at page 29. It is, therefore, urged that similar order be passed by this Court in the present matter. It is further submitted that against the said order, till date no appeal is filed by the respondents before the Division Bench of this Court.

4. The brief facts of the case are to the effect that, the petitioner is owner of Tata Signa Truck No.GJ05BZ4044 having Chassis No.MT448856J3H27242 and Engine No.ISB49B4H180K181H63722429 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘vehicle in question’) and it is being used for the purpose of transporting minerals. On 11.6.2020, it was checked by the officers of the respondent No.2 and after such inspection, was seized on the ground of illegal mining of ordinary sand of 30.063 metric tons.

4.1 When the vehicle in question was in the custody of the respondent No.2, the petitioner tried to take away the same without any permission, which led to filing of the First Information Report with Jetpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 120B of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of the registration of the First Information Report, the vehicle in question was shown as muddamal and therefore, the petitioner made an application under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for release of the muddamal. The learned J.M.F.C., Jetpur Pavi vide order dated 18.7.2020 released the vehicle in question.

4.2 The petitioner approached the concerned police station for the release of the vehicle in question, however, the petitioner was informed that it is seized by the respondent No.2 and therefore, the custody cannot be handed over to the petitioner. Upon making further inquiry, the petitioner was served with the photocopy of the show-cause notice dated 15.6.2020 issued by the respondent No.2, requiring the petitioner, inter alia, to pay Rs.2,53,752/towards compounding fees/penalty on the alleged charge of illegal transport of ordinary sand. According to the petitioner, photocopy of the said show-cause notice dated 15.6.2020 was given by the police authorities to the petitioner on 21.7.2020; however, such notice was never served upon the petitioner by the respondent No.2. Upon receipt of the show-cause notice dated 15.6.2020, the petitioner made an application through email for release of the vehicle in question on 28.7.2020.

4.3 However, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner received the order dated 24.7.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 whereby, the petitioner has been required to pay an amount of Rs.8,99,794/over and above what was demanded in the show-cause notice dated 15.6.2020. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the total amount comes to Rs.11,50,994/. Hence, the present petition.

5. Mr. Nitesh Jain, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the show-cause notice dated 15.6.2020 was never served upon the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the