Partly allowed

Idrishbhai Gulambhai Gudala v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC20 Feb 2019SCA/901/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court permitted the petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,125 as penalty. Upon deposit, the respondent is directed to release the seized truck. The petitioner is restrained from transferring the vehicle for six months and must provide an undertaking regarding future litigation.

What did the court decide?

Permitted deposit of Rs. 50,125; upon deposit, directed release of vehicle; restrained from transferring vehicle for six months.

Idrishbhai Gulambhai Gudala Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/901/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 901 of 2019

¶4

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

¶5

IDRISHBHAI GULAMBHAI GUDALA

¶6

Versus

¶7

STATE OF GUJARAT

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MS SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP(11) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

¶13

Date : 20/02/2019

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

1.This petition is filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India by the petitioner
praying that the respondent no.2 be directed to
release the vehicle i.e. Truck No.GJ-31-T-1281.

¶16

2.Heard learned advocate Ms.Kruti M. Shah for
the petitioner and learned Assistant Government
Pleader Ms.Pathak for the respondents.

¶17

3.It is submitted by learned advocate for the
petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of
the vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration
No.GJ-31-T-1281 (“vehicle in question” for
short). The said vehicle was stopped at Sant
Road-Morva Road by respondent no.2 on the ground
that when the said vehicle was seized, the

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

C/SCA/901/2019 ORDER

¶20

vehicle was carrying 10.025 MTs ordinary sand in
excess and without royalty pass. It is submitted
that the seizure memo was issued on 12.7.2018.
Order dated 29.9.2018 was passed, whereby, the
petitioner is ordered to pay the penalty and
compounding fees. 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.50,125/- for 10.025
MTs which was found in excess. 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.

¶21

4.On the other hand, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Pathak has opposed this
petition and submitted that ordinary sand in
excess was found without royalty pass and
therefore this petition may not be entertained.

¶22

5.In rejoinder, learned advocate 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

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

C/SCA/901/2019 ORDER

¶25

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.2 for release of the
vehicle in question.

¶26

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.2. After the seizure of the vehicle
in question, order dated 29.9.2018 is passed by
the respondent No.2 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
therein.

¶27

7.In view of the aforesaid discussion, the
petition is partly-allowed. The petitioner is
permitted to deposit an amount of Rs.50,125/-
before respondent no.2. As and when such amount

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

C/SCA/901/2019 ORDER

¶30

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.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.

¶31

Direct service is permitted.

¶32

(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)

¶33

SRILATHA

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Idrishbhai Gulambhai Gudala v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Idrishbhai Gulambhai Gudala 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

Pravinbhai Manjibhai Ghoghari Vs State of Gujarat

Jagdish Chhogaji Barot Vs State of Gujarat

Labhubhai Narshibhai Baraiya Vs State of Gujarat

Ankurbhai Manibhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat

Khimjibhai Premjibhai Moradiya Vs State of Gujarat

Vishal Babubhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat