Arshibhai Rajabhai Chetariya Since ... vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 1148 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Arshibhai Rajabhai Chetariya Since ... vs State Of Gujarat on 9 February, 2024

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/1260/2024                            ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

                                                                               undefined




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
       R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1260 of 2024
===================================================
ARSHIBHAI RAJABHAI CHETARIYA SINCE DECEASED THROUGH
            HIS SON DINESH ARSHIBHAI CHETARIYA
                           Versus
                     STATE OF GUJARAT
===================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN H. RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
===================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                           Date : 09/02/2024

                             ORAL ORDER

1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the captioned writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Rohan H. Raval, the learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent- State.

3. By way of this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:

"(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1260/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

petition;

(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the action of respondents of seizing the vehicle at ANNEXURE-B and release the LOADER MACHINE REGISTRATION NO GJ-10-AF-4045, of the ownership of the petitioner which is seized by the respondents and at present the case is pending with the respondent, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit.

(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for releasing the LOADER MACHINE REGISTRATION NO GJ-10-AF-4045 of the ownership of the petitioner which is seized by the respondents and at present the case is pending with the respondent, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit.

(d) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to release the vehicle bearing LOADER MACHINE REGISTRATION NO GJ-10-AF-4045, on appropriate terms and conditions that may be deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble court.

(e) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice."

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the son of the owner of the vehicle. The owner of the vehicle - Arshibhai Rajabhai Chetariya died on 15.03.2019. It is the case of the petitioner that Arshibhai Rajabhai Chetariya is the owner of the vehicle being LOADER MACHINE having REGISTRATION No. GJ-10-AF-4045 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle in question'). On 18.10.2021, inspection was carried out by the team of the respondent no.3 at Mouje: Lambhagaam, Vadishala No.6, Ratidhar. The vehicle was seized by the respondent authority as it was lying on the field of bauxite mining. The

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1260/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

respondent authority seized the vehicle, as it was not having valid royalty pass. The said vehicle was seized and kept in the custody of respondent no.3. It is the case of the petitioner that, no seizure memo has been given to the petitioner by any respondents till date. The Notice is given by the respondent authority on 17.11.2021 to compound the offence.

5. Mr. Jay N. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as is clear from the record that the vehicle in question came to be seized on 18.10.2021, followed by the show cause notice dated 17.11.2021; however, after the issuance of the show cause notice, 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, 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1260/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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.

5.1 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 show cause notice is concerned, the petitioner be permitted to pursue the said show cause notice as per the provisions of the Act.

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, under instructions, has fairly conceded that no First Information Report has been registered as provided under the provisions of Rules of 2017.

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

8. It is undisputed that the vehicle in question came to be seized on 18.10.2021, followed by the show cause notice dated 17.11.2021. 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.

                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/1260/2024                                ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

                                                                                   undefined

9. 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 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. In fact 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1260/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

undefined

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 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.

10. In view of the fact that the vehicle in question came to be seized on 18.10.2021, followed by the show cause notice dated 17.11.2021, no First Information Report has been registered within 45 days of the seizure, 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. LOADER MACHINE having REGISTRATION No. GJ-10-AF-4045.

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SCA/1260/2024                                 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2024

                                                                                     undefined

11. So far as the show cause notice dated 17.11.2021 is concerned, the petitioner shall appear and file necessary reply responding to the show cause notice and it will be open to the respondent authority to consider the reply, adjudicate the show cause notice 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.

12. 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