CASE TITLE- Mansukh Alias Ravji Gorasiya versus the State of Gujarat
CASE NUMBER- Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2020, Letters Patent Appeal No.882 of 2020
DATED ON- 19.04.2021
QUORUM- Honourable The Chief Justice Mr. Justice Vikram Nath and Honourable Mr. Justice Ashutosh J. Shastri
FACTS OF THE CASE
The two appeals raise similar questions of law and facts. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners are vehicle owners whose vehicles have been seized under the provisions of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. In Special Civil Application No.1628 of 2020, the seizure of the vehicle being Tata Hitachi Machine was made. The petitioner objected to the notice stating that the vehicle was being used for levelling of the road at Pipalsat and had nothing to do with any illegal mining activity, as such, the same may be released, but the same was not released. Therefore, the petition was filed before the court for quashing the notice and release of the vehicle. In Special Civil Application No.8809 of 2020, the Dumper was seized and notice was issued alleging that the vehicle was carrying 7.670 metric tons of minor mineral without royalty pass and accordingly, royalty fee of Rs. 38,350/ and compounding fee of Rs. 50,000/ were demanded. The petitioner gave a written response stating that the vehicle has been illegally detained and seized by violating the statutory rules and that he was ready to pay penalty of Rs. 38,350/ and was also ready and willing to give bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/. However, when he did not receive any response and relying upon certain orders of this Court wherein under similar circumstances the vehicles have been released unconditionally, he filed the petition in the first week of July, 2020. The Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2020 was filed assailing the correctness of the interim order passed in Special Civil Application No.8809 of 2020 wherein the learned Single Judge directed the Authorized Officer to release the vehicle after obtaining necessary continuing bank guarantee. Letters Patent Appeal No.882 of 2020 has been filed assailing the correctness of the CAV order dated passed in Special Civil Application No.1628 of 2020 which is interim in nature whereby the writ appellant was permitted to get the vehicle in question released after furnishing necessary continuing bank guarantee. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same interim orders, stated that learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara Vs. State of Gujarat had held that if no prosecution is launched within 45 days of the seizure of the vehicle, there would be no question of furnishing bank guarantee and the detention of the vehicle thereafter would be illegal and as such liable to be released unconditionally.
ISSUES RAISED
No such issue was raised before the court of law, however the Hon’ble court decided on
- Whether the judgment in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara Vs State of Gujarat was right or not?
- Whether the Interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge correct or not?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Rule 12 (2) (b) (ii) of Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017
Article 14 of Indian Constitution
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The appellant contented that, the learned Single Judge committed error in imposing the condition of furnishing continuing bank guarantee while passing interim order for release of the vehicles as the same was in direct conflict with the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application inasmuch as 45 days’ time from the date of seizure had long expired in both the appeals and no written complaint was filed before the Court of Sessions. The Single Judge’s did not respect the judicial discipline in not following the earlier judgement. The learned Single Judge considered the merit of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which was not within their domain as they were not sitting in appeal but were coordinate Benches. It is mandatory on the part of Authorized Officer to file the complaint within 45 days before the Court of Sessions as prescribed in Rule 12(2)(b) (ii), failing which, the Authorized Officer would not have any justification for retaining the vehicles even for a day after 45 days and the vehicle will have to be necessarily released unconditionally on the 46th day. If any other interpretation is applied to Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), Such interpretation would be very harsh and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any complaint being filed by the authorized officers, the vehicle owners cannot approach the Criminal Court under provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the vehicles.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent drew the attention of the Court to the various provisions contained in the 1957 Act as also the 2017 Rules and also contended that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge requiring the release of the vehicles on furnishing of continuing Bank Guarantee of the amount were just and valid and as such no interference would be required by the Division Bench in appeal. He also submitted that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in the present appeals are interim in nature and as such also the present appeals may not be entertained. Insofar as the submission relating to judicial discipline being adhered to by the learned Single Judge, the respondent left that issue to the wisdom of the Court. Further, insofar as non-filing of a complaint and insisting of bank guarantee, the respondent referred to the various provisions under the 1957 Act as also the 2017 Rules, but could not show any provision as to which would place a cap on the authority to file the complaint within a fixed timeframe.
COURT’S ANAYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court held that Since two Hon’ble Single Judges have passed the impugned interim orders not in conformity with the law laid down in Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara (supra), the court deem it appropriate not to deal with the said issue in these appeals as the judgment is not in challenge before the court. The issue to be decided by the learned Single Judge on merits as to whether the learned Single Judge would agree to the view taken by the judgment or would like to refer the same for consideration by a Larger Bench. The appellants would be entitled to the relief as granted by the Learned Single Judge in the above mentioned case. The court allowed the appeals to the aforesaid extent and set aside only that part of the order of the learned Single Judge where it directs for furnishing of continuing Bank Guarantee. The court ordered the release of the seized vehicles by the respondent authorities within a period of one week.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a 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.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shreyasi Ghatak
