Mehboobbhai Ishakbhai Alam vs Additional Geologist & 1

1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Shah waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner prayed for, following relief :

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the impugned action of the respondent in seizing the Truck bearing Registration No.GJ­ 16­U­6328 and the continuous seizure/detention is illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent Authorities to release the petitioner’s Truck bearing Registration No.GJ­16­U­6328 on such terms and conditions as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court, pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition.

3. Facts of the present petition are as under :

The petitioner is having truck bearing registration No.GJ­16­U­ 6328 and said truck was purchased on 4.7.2012 from one Nafis Aarif Mamji by way of vehicle sale deed. No objection certificate for transfer of the said truck was issued on 10.9.2012 and name of the petitioner was entered in the R.C. Book on 16.9.2012 with RTO, Vadodara. The said truck of the petitioner was engaged to fill up the sand and therefore, the driver of the said truck took the truck and proceeded to Valsad by filling up sand with the royalty pass given by Nareshbhai Rathwa. Said truck was detained and seized near Garudeshwar at Rajpipla. The seizing Authority was of the opinion that the royalty pass was not genuine. As per the say of the petitioner, the Authority, however, did not provide any document like seizure memo/panchnama etc. to the petitioner. The said truck is now seized and kept at Rajpipla Police Station in open place. The petitioner explained the circumstances to the Authorities by filing application in form of affidavit about the seizure of the truck. Even before the action initiated by the respondent Authorities, no show cause notice was issued.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Pahwa for the petitioner states that the petitioner’s livelihood depends upon the truck and the petitioner is facing great financial hardship due to seizure of his truck. He also states that without following due procedure, the respondent Authorities seized the truck and therefore, the seizure of vehicle is illegal and unjust. Learned advocate relies upon the decision of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1168 of 2012 dated 11.10.2012 and submitted that in that case, this Court has passed an order to release of the truck on executing a bond and undertaking. He further states that in that case, on 18.6.2012, the petitioner of that case, preferred an application to the respondent Nos.3 and 4, to release the vehicle subject to the terms and conditions which the Authorities may deem fit to impose. In that case, no order was passed by the respondent Authorities on the application preferred by that petitioner. He also states that in this case also, the petitioner preferred application dated 1.11.2012 and no order has yet been passed by the Authorities. He relies on para 18 of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1168 of 2012, wherein the direction to release the vehicle was issued. He, therefore, states that present case may be considered on the line of that order passed in aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal and the petitioner is ready and willing to comply the direction that may be issued by this Court.

5. Learned AGP Mr. Shah appearing for the State, states that if the present petitioner is ready to follow the direction issued in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, then the State has no objection.

6. Having considered the contents of the petition along with papers and order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1168 of 2012 and also submissions made by both the sides and considering the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay penalty etc., if action of the petitioner is found to be wrong, this Court is of the view that the petition is required to be disposed by giving same directions as given by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1168 of 2012. I have perused the Rules framed under the Act. Therefore, following order is passed by this Court.

The respondents to release the vehicle ­ truck of the petitioner bearing registration No.GJ­16­U­6328 on furnishing an undertaking as referred to hereinafter :

1. The petitioner shall execute a bond, within a period of one week from today, for the production of the vehicle so released, if and when required before the officer authorized by the Commissioner having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of such seizure, to the satisfaction of the authorized officer.

2. The petitioner shall carry on his business of transport, strictly in accordance with the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2005, as well as in accordance with the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2010;

3. The petitioner shall not sell, transfer or alienate the vehicle in any manner, pending the confiscation proceedings, and shall produce the vehicle before the authorized officer, as and when call upon to produce the same for the purpose of further proceedings in the matter.

7. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking on oath on the above terms, and on filing such an undertaking before the authorized officer or the authority concerned, the authorized officer shall immediately release the vehicle and hand over the same to the petitioner.

8. With the above observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Rule is accordingly made absolute. Direct service is permitted.

YNVYAS (Z.K.SAIYED, J.)