Dipikaben Bharatbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat
2024 Latest Caselaw 386 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Dipikaben Bharatbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 16 January, 2024

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/134/2024                              ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024

                                                                                 undefined




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 134 of 2024
==========================================================
                      DIPIKABEN BHARATBHAI PARMAR
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY N SHAH(10668) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ROHAN RAVAL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                            Date : 16/01/2024
                             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 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:

"(7. The petitioner therefore, prays that:-

(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow 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 respondents of seizing the vehicle at ANNEXURE-B and release the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/134/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024

undefined

ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-

19-U- 2288, 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 ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ- 19-U-2288, 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 being ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-19-U-2288, 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 owner of the vehicle i.e. ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-19-U-2288 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle in question'). On 19.10.2023, the respondent no.2 has seized the said vehicle and issued show cause notice on 20.10.2023. On 22.11.2023, the respondent no.2 has passed the order for payment of penalty.

5. Mr. Jay Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as is clear the show cause notice was issued on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/134/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024

undefined

20.10.2023; 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 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 impugned order dated 22.11.2023 is concerned, the petitioner may challenge the said order before the higher forum, as per the provisions of the Rules.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/134/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024

undefined

6. On the other hand, Mr. Rohan Raval, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has fairly conceded, on instructions that no First Information Report has been registered as provided under the Rules.

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

8. It is undisputed that the show cause notice was issued on 20.10.2023. 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.

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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/134/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024

undefined

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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/134/2024 ORDER DATED: 16/01/2024

undefined

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 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. ASHOK LEYLAND TRUCK REGISTRATION NO GJ-19- U-2288 of the petitioner. The present order is passed only for the purpose of release of the vehicle in question, reserving liberty in favour of the respective parties to take further action in accordance with law.

11. 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) SAJ GEORGE