1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Vyas waives service of Rule one behalf of respondents.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks following relief :
(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.
(b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for releasing the vehicle i.e. truck bearing No.GJ5 AV 7899 of the ownership of the petitioner, which is seized by the Flying Squad, Gandhinagar, on 12.09.2012 and for which the seizure memo is issued, under the provisions of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005, on such terms and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem think fit.
(c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, to the respondent No.3 to pass appropriate orders an application dated 02.11.2012 presented under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and Transportation) Rules, 2005 within one week, for the release of seized vehicle bearing No.GJ5 AV7899 of the ownership of the petitioner.
3. The facts of the present petition in short are such that the petitioner is owner of the loading vehicle truck bearing GJ5 AV 7899. The petitioner is doing the business of transportation. On 12.9.2012, during the inspection carried out by the Flying Squad, Gandhinagar, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized and detained at Nandod, when the said truck was passing from Garudeshwar. The said truck was detained and kept at Garudeshwar Police Station. On 2.11.2012, the petitioner made application to release the vehicle and has shown the willingness to abide by terms and conditions.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that the respondents Authorities have illegally seized and detained the vehicle of the petitioner. She further stated that Authorized Officer has power to release the vehicle on execution of the bond by the owner of the vehicle. The petitioner made several requests to release the vehicle to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 but the respondents have not taken care to release the vehicle. The vehicle of the petitioner is valued at Rs.25,00,000/ and the petitioner is ready and willing to give security or bond as demanded by the Authority, towards the penalty.
4. Learned advocate produced the copy of order passed in Special Civil Application No.15073 of 2012 dated 3.11.2012, wherein this Court has discussed in detail of the case, while releasing the vehicle of the owner.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Vyas opposed the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner and he supported the notice and seizure memo issued by the respondents.
6. In view of the above, it appears that the confiscation order has not yet passed and under Rule 18, the petitioner has right to approach the Authority. The petitioner is permitted to move before the Authority and the concerned respondent Authority is directed to pass necessary and appropriate order on the application/representation submitted by the petitioner under Rule 18. While deciding the case of the petitioner, the Authority shall take into consideration the orders passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.11.10.2012 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1168 of 2012 as well as order passed in Special Civil Application No.15073 of 2012 dated 3.11.2012. The Authority is directed to decide the application of the petitioner within one month from the receipt of this order.
7. The order shall take effect only after the petitioner executes bond and files undertaking on oath to the aforesaid effect and also as regards the conditions which may be directed by the Authority executed and undertaking is filed, the order which may be passed by the competent Authority shall take effect.
9. With the aforesaid clarification and direction, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
YNVYAS (Z.K.SAIYED, J.)