(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
1. In this appeal, State of Gujarat seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 28.01.2010 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.409 of 2010, whereby, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition directing Collector, Gandhinagar - original respondent No.2 to handover possession and custody of four trucks of the ownership of respondent herein - original petitioner bearing truck Nos.GJ-18-AT-8201, GJ-18-AT-9074, GJ-18-X-9625 and GJ-18-AT-9407.
2. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal can be summarised as under :
2.1 Original petitioner - respondent No.1 herein prayed before learned Single Judge to quash and set aside notice dated 11.12.2009 issued by Collector, Gandhinagar calling upon the original petitioner to deposit Rs.20,43,240/- towards royalty for excavation of minerals at the cost of Rs.60/- per ton. Original petitioner is engaged in the business of transporting clay from one place to another after obtaining necessary pass and permits from appellant Nos.3 and 4 herein.
2.2 One such application for permission was preferred on 19.11.2009 and after verification of the same, said permission was granted by appellant No.3 herein on 19.11.2009. The permission was granted by appellant No.2 - Collector, Gandhinagar for 1000 metric tons and the permission was valid for a period between 19.11.2009 to 25.11.2009.
2.3 It appears that since the work could not be completed, fresh permission for the second time was obtained for 2000 metric tons for the period between 26.11.2009 to 15.12.2009 vide order dated 26.11.2009. It appears that on 26.11.2009, the officers of Collector Office, Gandhinagar seized four trucks of the respondent herein - original petitioner on the ground that the same has been used in transportation of clay without any valid pass or permit.
2.4 Record reveals that first permission came to an end on 25.11.2009 and the case of the appellants is that on the strength of the first permission which expired on 25.11.2009, same clay was transported on 26.11.2009 without any valid pass or permit and therefore, the authorities were justified in seizing the four trucks which were used for illegal transportation of clay. It is in this background that learned Single Judge in paragraphs 7 and 8 observed as under :
"7.
As a result of hearing and on perusal of the record it is found that the permission was granted by the respondent No. 2 for 1000 Metric Tons and the validity period was from 19.11.2009 to 25.11.2009 by putting condition to pay Rs. 5/- per tone royalty amount. By complying with the same Rs. 5000/- was already paid by the petitioner. Subsequently as the work was not over, the second permission was obtained by the petitioner and the same was granted by respondent No.2 for about 2000 Metric Tons for the period from 26.11.2009 to 15.12.2009 vide order dated 26.11.2009. It is also found that on 26.11.2009 the officers of the respondent No. 2 seized four trucks of the petitioner on the ground that the same is utilized in transportation without any valid pass or permits. However, the fact remains that on that very day the permission was taken. Even though the petitioner has pointed out the same, the respondent authority has proceeded further and seized the vehicles. Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued. In any case there was requisite permission and on that ground the vehicles could not have been detained and the detention is without any authority of law. Further the vehicles are of different owners. Even the owners have filed undertaking to furnish security/bond release of the vehicle.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to show that on the day in question there was no permission. In fact the permission was taken on the very same day. Therefore, the impugned action is illegal and arbitrary."
3. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective parties, having perused the record of the case and having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are convinced that no case for interference in this appeal has been made out. The contention of the appellant appears to be too technical. Besides these, the four trucks which were seized are not of the ownership of the original petitioner i.e. respondent herein, but, they are of the ownership of different persons who are noway concerned with the business of transportation of clay as such.
4. We may also add that when the permission was granted upto 25.11.2009, it would mean that it was valid upto 24-00 hours on that date. Similarly, when permission was granted for 26.11.2009, it would operate from 00-00 hours of that date of 26.11.2009 since there is element of continuity in the permission. The view taken by the appellate board is, therefore, hyper-technical and could not have been upheld judicially. In our view, no error can be said to have been committed by learned Single Judge which would call for interference in exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction.
5. In the above view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
[A.L.
Dave, Actg.CJ.] Sd/-
[J.B.
PARDIWALA, J.] #MH Dave t: 150%"> Top