1. Heard Mr. Vakil, learned advocate for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners have taken out present petition seeking various relief/s in one petition. The relief/s prayed for by the petitioners in present petition read thus:-
"7.
(A) to quash the order dated 13.6.2012 (annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1- Geologist (B) to command the respondent No.1- Geologist to release the seized 13455 MT of Bauxite seized vide seizure memo dated 26.10.2010.
(C) to command the respondent No.1- Geologist to issue the transit pass / delivery challan / NOC for the sale / export of the said 13455 MT of Bauxite.
(D) to stay, pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 13.6.2012 passed by the respondent No.1- Geologist.
(E) to direct pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, the respondent No.1- Geologist to release the seized 13455 MT of Bauxite and to issue the necessary transit pass / delivery challan for the sale / export of the said 13455 MT of Bauxite.
(F) to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case (G) to provide for the costs of the present Special Civil Application."
3. So far as the impugned order dated 13.6.2012 (annexure-A page 20 and
21) is concerned, the petitioners are relegated to the Appellate Authority since statutory alternative remedy is available against the said order. In view of the provisions under the Act providing remedy of Appeal against the impugned order, the challenge against the order dated 13.6.2012 is not entertained at this stage. The petitioner may file Appeal before competent authority in accordance with the provisions under the Act. If and when Appeal is preferred the Appellate Authority may consider and decide the same in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Vakil, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the said order dated 13.6.2012 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as after the registration was granted, the concerned authority will become functus officio and cannot reject the application.
5. Since the remedy of statutory Appeal is provided under the Act, all contentions available against impugned order dated 13.6.2012 can be raised before the Appellate Authority who would decide the same in accordance with law and in light of the provisions under the Act. Therefore the petitioner is relegated to the Appellate Authority.
6. It is however clarified that if the petitioners prefer appeal within one week the concerned Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three weeks from the date of submission of Appeal.
7. The petitioners have also made grievance with regard to the action of seizure of about 13455 MT Bauxite. The petitioners have claimed that the said material came to be seized under seizure memo dated 26.10.2010 and though 18 months have already passed, any final decision / action is not taken. The petitioners have, challenged the said action on various grounds including contention that any procedure, after the seizure was effected, has not been undertaken and without any order of confiscation or without any notice for confiscation of the said material, the action of seizure and its effect are continued until now. It is claimed that the said action is unauthorized and contrary to the provisions of the Act. In the petition in paragraph No.5 the petitioner has asserted that in absence of any order of confiscation the petitioner has no alternative remedy available against the action of seizure.
8. In view of such facts and contention present petition is entertained to the extent it pertains to the challenge against the action of seizure.
9. Notice returnable on 20.7.2012. Direct service is permitted.
10. Before the next date of hearing the respondent authority shall file reply affidavit, if it intends to do so opposing the petition. If the reply affidavit is not filed, the Court may be constrained to consider request of the petitioners for interim relief and the Court may also pass appropriate order of cost against the responsible officer.
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh* Top