C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3408 of 2022
==========================================================
MALEK ANWARBHAI HUSAINBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL PRAJAPATI for MR ABHIRAJ R TRIVEDI(5576) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MINESH D ERINPURIA(8512) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 29/08/2022
ORAL ORDER
1 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.7.2020 and immediately release of vehicle bearing registration No.GJ-01-BV-2334 seized by the Prant Officer and Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector Team of Chhota Udepur and to direct the concerned authority to accept the bond from the petitioner as per the Rules and release the vehicle.
Page 1 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 1.1 However, learned advocate Mr.Dhaval Prajapati confines this petition only for the prayer of release of vehicle as order dated 20.7.2020 is appealable and by challenging the aforesaid order, the petition wants to avail the alternative remedy available to him. Permission, as prayed for is granted.
2 Heard learned advocate Mr.Dhaval Prajapati for Mr.Abhiraj Trivedi, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent - State. 3 By the consent of learned advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Hence, Rule. Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of respondent State authorities.
4 The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1 The petitioner is the registered owner of Page 2 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 the vehicle bearing No.GJ-01-BV-2334. On 22.6.2020 the petitioner went with the aforesaid vehicle to load sand at survey No.15-18-22 at Orsang River bed. That the lease of the sand was granted in favour of one Anilbhai Sampatbhai Bhoi, whereas the petitioner is only transporter. As per the case of the petitioner, as the site of the lease does not weighing machine and the vehicle has to travel 2 kms. from the place of lease to Prayosha Way Bridge for issuance of royalty.
4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on 22.6.2020 when the truck of the petitioner was parked beside the dredging machine, the Deputy Collector, Chhotaudepur visited the site of lease and the truck was parked legally at the site.
4.3 It is the case of the petitioner that when the Deputy Collector visited the site of lease, the truck was not involved in any illegal activity and the Deputy Collector asked for royalty and delivery challan, which could not be produced by driver of the Page 3 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 truck, as those documents could be given to the petitioner only after measuring the weight of the truck at Prayosha Way Bridge, which is around 2 kms. far away, and therefore, ultimately truck of the petitioner was seized. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for release of his vehicle. 5 Mr.Dhaval Prajapati, learned advocate 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.Prajapati states that the issue is squarely covered by the order of the co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Page 4 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 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.
6 Mr.Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, 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.
7 Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. The issue raised in the writ petition is governed under the Rule 12(2)(b) (ii) of the Rules, 2017 which reads as under:
"12. Seizure of property liable to
confiscation.-
(2)(b)(ii) a preliminary investigation, and if compounding is not permissible under rule 22 or if he is satisfied that the offence committed in respect of the property is not compoundable, upon the expiry of forty-five days from the date of seizure or upon completion of the Page 5 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 investigation, whichever is earlier, shall approach by way of making a written complaint, before the Court of Sessions."
8 The truck was seized on 26.6.2020, and therefore, undisputedly, the complaint, as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules, has not been filed yet and, therefore, in absence of any complaint, the action of continuation of the detention of the truck by the respondent authority, is illegal and against the provisions of the Rules.
9 Reliance has rightly been placed on the judgment in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara Vs. State of Gujarat, passed in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020. The Paragraph Nos.7, 10 and 11 of the judgment read thus:-
"7. Pertinently the competent authority under Rule 12 is only authorized to seize the property investigate the offence and compound it; the penalty can be imposed and confiscation of the Page 6 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 property can be done only by order of the court.
Imposition of penalties and other punishments under Rule 21 is thus the domain of the court and not the competent authority. Needless to say therefore that for the purpose of confiscation of the property it will have to be produced with the sessions court and the custody would remain as indicated in sub-rule 7 of Rule 12. Thus where the offence is not compounded or not compoundable it would be obligatory for the investigator to approach the court of sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the court on expiry of the specified period. In absence of this exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated; resultantly the property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for the bank guarantee.
10. The bank guarantee is contemplated to be furnished in three eventualities: (i) for the release of the seized property and (ii) for compounding of the offence and recovery of compounded amount, if it remains unpaid on expiry of the specified period of 30 days; (iii) for recovery of unpaid penalty. Merely because that is so, it cannot be said that the investigator would be absolved from its duty of Page 7 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 instituting the case on failure of compounding of the offence. Infact offence can be compounded at two stages being (1) at a notice stage, within 45 days of the seizure of the vehicle; (2) during the prosecution but before the order of confiscation. Needless to say that for compounding the offence during the prosecution, prosecution must be lodged and it is only then that on the application for compounding, the bank guarantee could be insisted upon. In absence of prosecution, the question of bank guarantee would not arise; nor would the question of compounding of offence.
11. The deponent of the affidavit appears to have turned a blind eye on Rule 12 when he contends that application for compounding has been dispensed with by the amended rules inasmuch as; even the amended Rule 12(b)(i) clearly uses the word "subject to receipt of compounding application". Thus the said contention deserve no merits. Thus, in absence of the complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle without insisting for bank guarantee. There is thus a huge misconception on the part of the authority to assert that even in absence of the complaint it would have a dominance over the Page 8 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022 C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 seized property and that it can insist for a bank guarantee for its."
10 It has been held that it would be obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the Court on expiry of the specified period. In absence of such exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated; resultantly, the property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for the bank guarantee. 11 Under the circumstances, in absence of any complaint, the petition deserves to be allowed and the action of the respondent authority in seizing the truck bearing registration No.GJ-01-BV-2334, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly, quashed and set aside. The respondent authority, is forthwith directed to release the truck. Page 9 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022
C/SCA/3408/2022 ORDER DATED: 29/08/2022 12 With the aforesaid direction, the matter is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 10 of 10 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 03 20:07:31 IST 2022