Point of Law - The deponent of the affidavit appears to have turned a blind eye on Rule 12 when he contends that application for compounding has been dispensed with by the amended rules inasmuch as; even the amended Rule 12(b)(i) clearly uses the word “subject to receipt of compounding application”.

ORDER :

1. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

3. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner being Truck bearing Registration No.MP-09-HG-9290 (hereinafter referred to as "the vehicle").

4. The facts of the case are to the effect that the vehicle, is of the ownership of the petitioner. While the vehicle was returning to Dhar and while passing through Ferkuva check post, the vehicle of the petitioner was stopped by the check post police within the jurisdiction of Rangpur Police Station. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was served with a memo and was informed to pay the fine before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chhotaudepur. The petitioner appeared alongwith the memo signed by the Police Sub Inspector of Rangpur Police Station. The case was registered being CC No.429 of 2019. The petitioner also paid the fine of Rs.2,200/- on 09.04.2019; however, the vehicle of the petitioner was not released by the concerned police station. During the proceedings it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that necessary instructions were issued to the Office of Geology and Mining Department to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1957”). It is the case of the petitioner that no intimation or memo was issued to the petitioner about the seizure of the vehicle much less the seizure memo, therefore, the petitioner filed an application dated 17.06.2019 requesting for the copy of the seizure memo so that the petitioner can take appropriate steps for release of the vehicle; however, no such documents were supplied by the officials of the department.

4.1 The respondent No.3 – Assistant Geologist, Geology and Mining Department, Chhotaudepur has also filed the reply, inter alia, stating that the vehicle of the petitioner was detained by the police officials who, in turn, had handed over the possession of the vehicle to respondent No.3 on 25.04.2019. The petitioner, was also required to collect the seizure memo; however, the petitioner did not remain present which, led to passing of the order dated 19.11.2019, requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- per metric tonne for quantity of ordinary sand, which was in excess of the permissible limit.

5. The petitioner in rejoinder, has denied of any issuance of intimation by the respondent No.3. The petitioner, has placed heavy reliance to the provisions of Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transporation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2017”) as well as the judgment of the Division Bench passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.397 of 2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.

6. Mr.A. A. Zabuawala, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that some proceedings were initiated at the level of police officials before the Court of competent jurisdiction and thereafter, the vehicle appears to have been handed over to the Office of the Geologist, Geology and Mining Department. It is submitted that despite the repeated request of the petitioner to the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 neither supplied the copy of the seizure memo nor the order passed. The petitioner, was compelled to make an application praying for the documents and release of the vehicle; however, the respondent No.3 did not give any heed to the request of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is clear that the vehicle was detained and/or handed over to the respondent No.3 on 25.04.2019; however, till date, no seizure memo has been issued much