Back
2022 Supreme(Guj) 896
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.
Shobhaben Rameshbhai Makavana – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No.15383 of 2022
Decided on : 12-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Hirenkumar M Niyalchandani
For the Respondent: Mr. Hardik Mehta
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure of property under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral rules requires the filing of a complaint, and in the absence of a complaint, the property should be released without insisting for a bank guarantee.
Headnote:
Seizure - Release of Vehicle - Gujarat Mineral (Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) rules, 2017 - Rule 12(2)(b)(ii)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's truck was seized for transporting illegal mining materials. The petitioner initially submitted an affidavit offering to pay a certain amount but later withdrew it. The petitioner sought the release of the seized vehicle as it had been more than 45 days and no FIR was registered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the seizure of the truck was illegal as no complaint had been filed as required by Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral rules. The court also noted that similarly situated persons were not required to deposit any amount or provide a bank guarantee for the release of their vehicles.
Issues: The main issue was whether the seizure of the truck was in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the seizure of the truck was illegal as no complaint had been filed as required by the rules. It emphasized that the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated in the absence of a complaint, and the property should be released without insisting for the bank guarantee.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the action of the respondent authority in seizing the truck and directed the authority to release the truck forthwith.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to forthwith release of vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-10-U-8925 seized by the respondent authority.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hirenkumar M. Niyalchandani for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta for respondent – State.
3. By the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Learned AGP Mr.Hardik Mehta waives service of rule on behalf of respondent State authorities.
4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Hirenkumar M. Niyalchandani for the petitioner places on record an affidavit dated 07.10.2022. The same is taken on record.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the owner of the Truck bearing Registration No.GJ-10-U-8925. On 08.03.2022 while transporting the mineral stones from Surendranagar to Rajkot, Airport police have intercepted the vehicle and interrogated the driver and seized the vehicle for transporting the mining which was illegal. Thereafter, seizure memo was also issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, Mining Department issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 10.05.2022 and at that time, the petitioner filed an affidavit before the concerned authority at Rajkot on 25.08.2022 stating that the petitioner is ready to pay an amount of Rs. 93,733/- and Rs.901/- for environmental dues. However, after knowing that while passing the order directing the authorities to release the vehicle of similarly situated persons, this Court has not directed the other similarly situated persons either to deposit any amount before the authority or to provide bank guarantee and therefore, by way of this affidavit, which is submitted today, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner withdraws the aforesaid affidavit dated 25.08.2022 and she may be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid affidavit.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Hirenkumar M. Niyalchandani for the petitioner states that since last more than 45 days the vehicle has been seized and FIR is not registered in respect of seizure of the vehicle. As per rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral (Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) rules, 2017 (for short, `the Rules’) if an application for compounding of offence is not received, the vehicle/machine shall be produced before the court to determine commission of such offence, upon expiry of 45 days from the date of seizure or upon completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier, the vehicle is required to be released. Learned advocate Mr. Niyalchandani states that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020 order dated 26.8.2020 and order dated 1.12.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No.16887 of 2021.
7. Learned AGP Mr. Hardik Mehta has strongly opposed this petition by stating that the petitioner has already filed an affidavit that she is ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs.93,733/- + Rs.901/- towards environmental charges and therefore, once that affidavit is submitted before the authority, unless that amount is deposited, this Court may not issue any direction to the authority to release the vehicle of the petitioner.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta, upon instructions, states that pursuant to the alleged incident, no FIR is registered and he could not dispute the fact that the vehicle has been seized for more than 45 days.
9. As far as the opposition by the learned AGP Mr. Mehta against the affidavit submitted by the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that in similar cases, it has not been insisted upon by the Coordinate Bench as well as by this Court to direct the affected person whose vehicle is seized to deposit any amount or to furnish the bank guarantee and therefore, merely because the petitioner at one point of time under compelling circumstances has submitted an affidavit
