Allowed

Kiritsinh Govindsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Jan 2019SCA/20618/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought release of his seized excavation machine via a writ petition. The court noted the authority failed to issue a show-cause notice or register an FIR, and the petitioner offered a penalty. The petition was allowed, directing the release of the machine subject to depositing fees and an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to release the machine on deposit of Rs.2 lacs and undertaking to comply if ordered by a competent court.

Kiritsinh Govindsinh Sisodiya Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/20618/2018 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20618 of 2018

¶4

==========================================================

¶5

KIRITSINH GOVINDSINH SISODIYA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA(3242) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP(99) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 2,3,4

¶11

==========================================================

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 11/01/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.This petition is filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India in which the
petitioner has prayed that the respondents be
directed to release the excavation machine Tata
Hitachi Ex.110.

¶16

2.Heardlearnedadvocateforthe

¶17

petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Patel for the respondents.

¶18

3.It is contended by learned advocate for
the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner
of the machine in question. When the said machine
was moving/passing through the riverbed of
Sabarmati, same was intercepted by the authority

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

C/SCA/20618/2018 ORDER

¶21

on 7.12.2018 alleging that the machine was doing
illegal excavation, the same was seized and
seizure memo was issued. The petitioner submitted
an application dated 20.12.2018 for release of
the machine. However, till date, the machine in
question is not released. Therefore, the present
petition is filed.

¶22

4.Learned advocate for the petitioner has
placed reliance on Rule 12 of the the Gujarat
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Storage and
Transportation) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred
to as `Rules of 2017') and submitted that the
respondent authority has not followed the
procedure prescribed under the said Rule and has
not issued any show cause notice nor taken any
action pursuant to the application dated
20.12.2018 filed by the petitioner. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has referred to the
averments made in paragraph 5 of the petition
wherein the petitioner has stated that so far as
the compounding penalty of machine is concerned,
the petitioner is ready and willing to pay such
penalty of Rs.2 lacs. He, therefore, requested
that this petition be allowed.

¶23

5.On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Patel is not in a position
to dispute that the procedure prescribed in Rules

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

C/SCA/20618/2018 ORDER

¶26

of 2017 is not followed and even the notice is
also not issued. She, therefore, requested that
appropriate order may be passed.

¶27

6.Having heard learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner and having gone through the
material produced on record, it is revealed that
the machine in question is seized by the
respondent authority on 7.12.2018. However, till
date, no show cause notice is issued to the
petitioner, no FIR is registered against the
petitioner for the alleged violation of Rules of
2017. It is not in dispute that till today, the
machine in question is not produced before the
competent criminal Court. It is also to be
considered that no action is taken by the
respondents pursuant to the application dated
20.12.2018 filed by the petitioner.

¶28

7.In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case, the petition
is allowed with a direction to the respondent-
authorities to release the machine in question on
the petitioner depositing Rs.2 lacs by way of
compounding fees and on giving undertaking to the
effect that if the competent Court finds that the
petitioner has committed the alleged offence, the
petitioner will deposit the amount determined by
the competent Court or the authority. The

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

C/SCA/20618/2018 ORDER

¶31

petitioner is directed not to transfer the
machine in favour of any third party for a period
of six months from today. It is open for
respondent no.2 to proceed further in the matter
in accordance with law. Direct service is
permitted.

¶32

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶33

SRILATHA

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Kiritsinh Govindsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiritsinh Govindsinh Sisodiya v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehulbhai Ballubhai Naik Vs State of Gujarat

Parmabai Varjangbha Ker Vs .

Kantibhai Ramjibhai Mistri Vs State of Gujarat

Narpatsinh Khumansinh Makwana Vs State of Gujarat

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Ajitsinh Hemantsinh Jadav Vs State of Gujarat