Gordhanbhai Jeshabhai Rangpara v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC22 Feb 2019SCA/504/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to release a seized vehicle dumper. Court partly allowed petition allowing deposit of penalty amount upon which vehicle release is directed transfer restrictions imposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to deposit Rs.40,000/-; upon deposit, respondent directed to release vehicle; petitioner directed not to transfer vehicle for six months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Gordhanbhai Jeshabhai Rangpara Vs State of… — Mining and Natural Resources | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶14

1.This petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by the petitioner
praying that the note dated 21.1.2018 signed by
the respondent no.4 be quashed and set aside and
the respondent no.4 be directed to release the
vehicle i.e. Dumper No.GJ-03-V-8272.

¶16

3.It is submitted by learned advocate for the
petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of
the vehicle i.e. Dumper bearing registration
No.GJ-03-V-8272 (“vehicle in question” for
short). The said vehicle was stopped at Chotila
Jasan Road by respondent no.4 on the ground that

¶19

when the said vehicle was seized, the vehicle was
carrying 7.855 MTs carbonaceous shale (normal) in
excess and without royalty pass. It is submitted
that the seizure memo was issued on 27.1.2018.
Notice dated 20.2.2019 was issued to the
petitioner, whereby the petitioner is asked
whether he is ready to pay the penalty and
compounding fees or not. Till date, no FIR is
registered against the petitioner by the
respondent authority and vehicle is not produced
before the competent criminal Court even after
completion of 15 days from the date of the
seizure. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and
willing to pay the amount of penalty of
Rs.40,000/- for 7.855 MTs which was found in
excess, without prejudice to his rights and
contentions. Learned advocate Ms.Shah for the
petitioner has placed reliance on the order dated
27.11.2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil
Application No.14234 of 2018.

¶24

till date not produced the vehicle in question
before the concerned Court and has referred the
provisions contained in Rule 12 of the Rules of
2017 as well as Section 21 (4A) of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1957”).
Learned advocate has also referred the decision
dated 10.07.2018 rendered by the Division Bench
of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.782 of
2018 and submitted that in view of the said
decision, appropriate direction be given to
respondent No.4 for release of the vehicle in
question.

¶25

6.Having heard learned advocates appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the record, it is
revealed that the petitioner is the owner of the
vehicle in question which was seized by
respondent No.4. After the seizure of the vehicle
in question, notice dated 20.2.2019 is issued by
the respondent No.4 to the petitioner. In similar
matter, this Court has considered the provisions
contained in Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 and
also the order dated 10.07.2018 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent
Appeal No.782 of 2018 and thereafter directed the
concerned authority to release the vehicle of the
petitioner. The case of the present petitioner is
almost similar to the case of the appellant

¶29

7.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
petition is partly-allowed. The petitioner is
permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/-
before respondent no.4. As and when such amount
is deposited by the petitioner, respondent No.2
is directed to release the vehicle in question.
However, the petitioner is directed not to
transfer the vehicle 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.4 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.4 to
proceed further in the matter in accordance with
law.

Gordhanbhai Jeshabhai Rangpara v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gupta Anandkumar Satyanarayan Vs State of Gujarat

Pathan Sahirkhan Mustufakhan Vs State of Gujarat

Rajeshbhai Kanubhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Bhalaji Devrajji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

Gordhanbhai Jeshabhai Rangpara v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gupta Anandkumar Satyanarayan Vs State of Gujarat

Pathan Sahirkhan Mustufakhan Vs State of Gujarat

Rajeshbhai Kanubhai Parmar Vs State of Gujarat

Bhalaji Devrajji Thakor Vs State of Gujarat

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Bharatkumar Somdas Prajapati through Poa Vikas Bharatbhai Prajapati Vs State of Gujarat

Amrutkunvarba Vakhatsinh Thakore through Poa Vikramsinh Kishorsinh Jhala Vs State of Gujarat