Point of Law: All Courts including the High Courts and the Supreme Court have to follow a principle of Comity of Courts. A Bench whether coordinate or Larger, has to refrain from making any uncharitable observation on a decision even though delivered by a Bench of a lesser coram. A Bench sitting in a Larger coram may be right in overturning a judgment on a question of law, which jurisdiction a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench does not have. In any case, a Judge sitting in a coordinate Bench or a Larger Bench has no business to make any adverse comment or uncharitable remark on any other judgment.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

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 petitioner-appellant was permitted to get the vehicle in question released after furnishing necessary continuing bank guarantee as shown in notice Form J 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 Form-J and on fulfillment of other requirements by the petitioner.

4. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are vehicle owners whose vehicles have been seized under the provisions of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2017 Rules”).

5. In Special Civil Application No.1628 of 2020, the seizure of the vehicle being Tata Hitachi Machine was made on 16.10.2019 and notice in Form-J under the 2017 Rules was issued on 24.12.2019. The petitioner objected to the notice by giving a reply dated 30.12.2019 stating that the vehicle was being used for levelling of the road at Pipalsat and had nothing to do with any illegal mining activity, as such, the same may be released. When despite the said reply dated 30.12.2019 the vehicle was not released, the petition was filed in January, 2020 before this Court for quashing of the notice dated 24.12.2019 and also for release of the vehicle.

6. In Special Civil Application No.8809 of 2020, the Dumper bearing No.GJ12V6037 was seized on 18.5.2020 and notice was issued on 22.06.2020 alleging that the vehicle was carrying 7.670 metric tons of minor mineral without royalty pass and accordingly, royalty fee of Rs.38,350/and compounding fee of Rs.50,000/were demanded. The petitioner gave a written response on 01.07.2020 stating that the vehicle has been illegally detained and seized by violating the statutory rules and that he was ready to pay penalty of Rs.38,350/and was also ready and willing to give bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/.

However, when he did not receive any response and relying upon certain orders of this Court wherein under similar circumstances the vehicles have been released unconditionally, he filed the petition in the first week of July, 2020.

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.

8. We have heard Mr. Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel for Ms. Namrata J. Shah and Mr. Jay N. Shah, learned advocates appearing for the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2020, Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned advocate appearing for