Partly allowed

Narpatsinh Khumansinh Makwana v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC11 Jan 2019SCA/463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an order directing payment for machine release as no FIR was registered. Directed respondent to release JCB upon Rs.3,500 payment after applying prior Division Bench precedent.

What did the court decide?

Interim order directed respondents to release JCB machine after petitioner pays Rs.3,500 and gives undertaking not to transfer it for six months.

Narpatsinh Khumansinh Makwana Vs State of Gujarat — Property and Title | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/463/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 463 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

NARPATSINH KHUMANSINH MAKWANA

¶6

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶7

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

¶8

Appearance:

¶9

MS.NAMRATA J SHAH(6534) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR KM ANTANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER(1) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1-2

¶10

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

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI Date : 11/01/2019 ORAL ORDER

¶12

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner

¶13

has prayed that the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by
respondent No.2 be quashed and set aside and
respondent No.2 be directed to release the JCB

¶14

machine bearing registration No.GJ-03-HE-5777.

¶15

2. Heard learned advocate Ms.Namrata J. Shah for

¶16

the petitioner and learned Assistant Government

¶17

Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani for the respondents.

¶18

3. It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner

¶19

of the JCB Machine bearing registration No.GJ-03-HE-

¶20

5777. The said machine came to be seized on

¶21

04.10.2018 by respondent No.2. Thereafter, on

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

C/SCA/463/2019 ORDER

¶24

09.10.2018, Show-cause Notice was issued to the
petitioner, in which, the petitioner was asked to
give his consent of compounding of the alleged
offence and to pay Rs.2,04,000/-. However, no reply

¶25

was given by the petitioner and, therefore, on
30.11.2018, respondent No.2 passed an order by which
the petitioner is directed to pay total amount of
Rs.2,04,000/- including compounding fees of
Rs.2,00,000/-.

¶26

3.1Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent authority has not followed the
procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Gujarat
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Storage and
Transportation) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Rules” for short) and after completion of 15
days, the respondent has not released the machine in
question. Till date, the FIR is not registered
against the petitioner for the alleged violation of
Rules of 2017. It is, therefore, urged that the
impugned order be set aside and respondent No.2 be
directed to release the mcahine in question.

¶27

Page 2 of 5

¶28

C/SCA/463/2019 ORDER

¶29

3.2Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed
reliance upon the order dated 26.10.2018 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1322 of 2018.

¶30

4.On the other hand, learned Assistant Government
Pleader has opposed this petition and submitted that
the petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing
an appeal under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2017 before
Additional Director (Appeal). However, the petitioner
has directly approached this Court. It is, therefore,
urged that this Court may not entertain this
petition.

¶31

5.This Court has considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the
parties and also gone through the material produced
on record. From the record, it is revealed that till
date, the respondent has not registered any FIR
against the petitioner for the alleged violation of
the Rules of 2017. Though the machine is seized on
04.10.2018, till date, the same is not produced
before the competent Criminal Court.

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

C/SCA/463/2019 ORDER

¶34

6.The Division Bench of this Court has considered
similar issue in Letters Patent Appeal No.1322 of
2018, copy of which is produced at Page-16 of the
compilation.

¶35

7.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, when the respondent has not registered
the FIR against the petitioner for the alleged
violation of the Rules of 2017 and when the
petitioner has not given his consent for compounding
of the alleged offence, the respondent authority was
required to release the machine in question within
stipulated time limit. The Division Bench of this
Court has considered the similar issue in Letters
Patent Appeal No.1322 of 2018. This Court is the view
that the said order passed by the Division Bench in
the aforesaid case would be applicable to the facts
of the present case.

¶36

8.Accordingly, the petition is partly-allowed. The

¶37

respondent authority is directed to release the
machine in question on condition of payment of
Rs.3,500/- before the respondent authority. The

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

C/SCA/463/2019 ORDER

¶40

direction is also given to the petitioner that he
shall not transfer the machine in question in favour
of any third party for a period of six months from
today. The petitioner is also directed to give an
undertaking before respondent No.2 to the effect that
if the competent Court finds that the petitioner has
committed the alleged offence, the petitioner will
deposit the remaining amount before the concerned
Court or the authorized officer. It is open for
respondent No.2 to proceed further in the matter in
accordance with law.

¶41

Direct service is permitted.

¶42

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶43

piyush

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Narpatsinh Khumansinh Makwana v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narpatsinh Khumansinh Makwana 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

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

Ravindrabhai Shankarbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Ajitsinh Hemantsinh Jadav Vs State of Gujarat

Kiritsinh Govindsinh Sisodiya Vs State of Gujarat