Special Civil Application seeking release of an excavation machine seized for alleged illegal excavation. Court apprved release upon deposit of Rs.2 lacs and undertaking to comply with future court orders.
Petition allowed; machine to be released after deposit of Rs.2 lacs and undertaking to abide by further orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/SCA/20620/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20620 of 2018
==========================================================
AJITSINH HEMANTSINH JADAV
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
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
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 11/01/2019
ORAL ORDER
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
bearing registration no.GJ3850070.
2.Heardlearnedadvocateforthe
petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Patel for the respondents.
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
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/20620/2018 ORDER
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.
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.
5.On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Patel is not in a position
to dispute that the procedure prescribed in Rules
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/20620/2018 ORDER
of 2017 is not followed and even the notice is
also not issued. She, therefore, requested that
appropriate order may be passed.
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.
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
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/20620/2018 ORDER
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.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
SRILATHA
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the excavation machine seized for alleged violation of Rules 2017 should be released upon deposit of compounding fees.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AJITSINH HEMANTSINH JADAV
STATE OF GUJARAT
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court