Case Title
MANSUKH ALIAS RAVJI GORASIYA V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT (C/LPA/717/2020)
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Introduction
The case results from various appeals to the HC; noting the similarity of the same, the instances were clubbed, and a single judgement was passed. The requests involve releasing vehicles seized under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The appeals challenge the condition imposed by the learned Single Judge of furnishing a continuing bank guarantee for releasing the vehicles.
Facts of the Case
In the first appeal, the vehicle owner sought the release of a Tata Hitachi Machine seized on 16.10.2019. The petitioner argued that the vehicle was used for road levelling, not illegal mining. Despite a reply stating this, the vehicle was not released, leading to the filing of a petition for the quashing of the notice and release of the vehicle.
In the second appeal, a dumper bearing No.GJ-12-V-6037 was seized on 18.5.2020 for carrying minor minerals without a royalty pass. The petitioner claimed that the vehicle was illegally detained and offered to pay the penalty and provide a bank guarantee. However, when no response was received, a petition was filed for the release of the vehicle.
In both cases, the learned Single Judge granted interim orders allowing the release of the vehicles upon furnishing a continuing bank guarantee and fulfilling other requirements. The appellants argued that the condition of a bank guarantee conflicted with a previous judgment stating that if no prosecution is launched within 45 days of seizure, the vehicle must be released unconditionally.
Judgement
During the appeal, the appellants’ counsels argued that the learned Single Judge should have followed the earlier judgment and that the Authorized Officer must file a complaint within 45 days, failing which the vehicle should be released unconditionally. They contended that any other interpretation would give the Authorized Officer excessive power and violate the constitutional right to equality.
The Advocate General representing the state respondents defended the orders of the learned Single Judge and referred to provisions in the 1957 Act and the 2017 Rules. However, they could not provide any provision specifying a time limit for filing a complaint.
Upon considering the submissions, the Division Bench found that the previous judgment clearly stated that a written complaint must be filed within 45 days. In the absence of such a complaint, the seized property should be released without insisting on a bank guarantee.Top of Form
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aadit Shah
