Sanjaybhai Manubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 1233 Guj

     C/SCA/14903/2021                           ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14903 of 2021

==================================================
             SANJAYBHAI MANUBHAI PATEL
                         Versus
                  STATE OF GUJARAT
==================================================
Appearance:
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ISHAN JOSHI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                          Date : 04/02/2022

                            ORAL ORDER

1. Rule. Mr. Ishan Joshi, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondents.

2. This writ-application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ-applicant seeking for the following reliefs which are produced thus :-

"a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit this petition;

b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent no. 3 of seizing the vehicles i.e. Tata LPK 2518 BS III having registration GJ-18-AU-8942 and GJ-18 AZ-8942 of the petitioner;

c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 2 and 3 to

C/SCA/14903/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022

immediately release the vehicles i.e. Tata LPK 2518 BS III having registration GJ-18-AU-8942 and GJ-18-AZ-8942 of the petitioner,

d) Pending the admission and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Authorities to release the vehicles i.e. Tata LPK 2518 BS III having registration GJ-18-AU-8942 and GJ-18-AZ-8942 of the petitioner upon such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit;

e) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of Para-d), hereinabove;

f) To pass such other and further order in the interest of justice which may be deemed fit to this Hon'ble Court."

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle i.e. TATA LPK 2518 BS III having registration No. GJ-18-AU-8942 and GJ-18-AZ-8942 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle in question'). On 07.08.2021, the said trucks of the petitioner was seized by the concerned authority. The petitioner was sent representation / reply to the concerned authority in the month of August, 2021 alongwith the affidavits.

4. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as is clear from the seizure memo, the same was issued on 07.08.2021; however, after the issuance of the seizure memo, no steps worth the name have been initiated by the respondent, much less filing the F.I.R. as provided under sub-clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,

C/SCA/14903/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022

Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 2017"). It is submitted that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the vehicle, is illegal and against the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat , rendered in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020. It is submitted that this Court has categorically held and observed that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017, in absence of the complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee. Therefore, the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. It is therefore urged that the petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondent authorities to release the vehicle.

4.1 It is urged that the petition be entertained only for the limited purpose of release of the vehicle. So far as the adjudication of the seizure memo is concerned, the petitioner be permitted to pursue the same as per the provisions of the Act.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has fairly conceded on instructions that after the

C/SCA/14903/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022

issuance of the seizure memo, as per the instructions given by the concerned officer, no orders have been passed considering the pendency of the writ petition. It is also conceded on instructions that no First Information Report has been registered as provided under the provisions of Rules of 2017.

6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

7. It is undisputed that seizure memo was issued on 07.08.2021. It is not disputed rather conceded that after the period of 45 days, no First Information Report has been registered by the respondent authority. Therefore, the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat (supra) applies to the facts of the present case.

8. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court, while dealing with the provisions of the sub-clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub- Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017, in paragraphs 7, 10 and 11 has held and observed 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 property can be done only by order of the court. Imposition of penalties and other

C/SCA/14903/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022

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 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

C/SCA/14903/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022

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 seized property and that it can insist for a bank guarantee for its."

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.

9. In view of the fact that no First Information Report has been registered and the principle laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case applies to the facts of the present case, the present petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed to the limited extent of directing the respondent to release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. TATA LPK 2518 BS III having registration No. GJ-18-AU-8942 and GJ-18-AZ-8942. So far as the seizure memo dated 07.08.2021 is concerned, the petitioner shall appear and file necessary reply responding to the seizure memo and it will be open to the respondent

C/SCA/14903/2021 ORDER DATED: 04/02/2022

authority to consider the reply, adjudicate the same and pass orders, strictly in accordance with law. It is clarified that this Court, has not examined the merits of the issue involved and the observations made are only for the limited purpose of releasing the vehicle.

10. In view of the aforementioned discussion, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) Pradhyuman