Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/409/2010 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 409 of 2010
=========================================================
NAVDURGA
INFRASTRUCTURE THRO HIS MANAGER - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS BRAHMBHATT for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR CB UPADHYAYA AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 1 -
4.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 28/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
By
way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set
aside the notice dated 11.12.2009 issued by respondent-Collector,
Gandhinagar considering the same as illegal, arbitrary and against
the provision of law.
It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is carrying the
business of transporting clay from one place to another after taking
necessary pass and permits from the respondent Nos. 3 and 4
officers. An application for necessary permission was made on
19.11.2009 and after verification of the land in question by the
officer, the said permission was duly granted by the respondent No.3
on 19.11.2009. The permission was granted by the respondent No.2 for
1000 Metric Tons and validity period was given from 19.11.2009 to
25.11.2009. Subsequently work was not over and therefore, second
permission was obtained by respondent No.2 for about 2000 Metric
Tons for the period from 26.11.2009 to 15.12.2009 vide order dated
26.11.2009. On the very same day, the officers of the respondent No.
2 seized Four Trucks of the petitioner on the ground that the same
is utilized in transportation without any valid pass or permit.
Immediately on 11.12.2009, the petitioner visited the office of the
respondent No.3 for releasing the said trucks because all the
trucks were belonging to the different owners and petitioner had
taken the same on rental basis, but no reply has been given by the
respondent. Thereafter, after 16 days, a show cause notice has been
issued by the respondent No.2 on 11.12.2009 showing to recover an
amount of Rs. 20,43,240/- from the petitioner. Pursuant to the same
on 16.12.2009 necessary reply was filed by the petitioner but no
decision was taken for releasing the truck in favour of the
petitioner on furnishing Bond. The owner of the trucks also filed
necessary applications for release of their truck upon production
of personal/security bond. The respondent No. 3 is not deciding the
applications of the truck owner. Hence, this petition.
Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
Learned
advocate for the petitioner submitted that though the second
permission was obtained, four trucks of the petitioners were
detained stating that the four trucks of the petitioners were
illegally transporting the clay without any pass or permits, but the
facts remain that the petitioner had already taken permission from
26.11.2009 to 15.12.2009 from the respondent. However, without
considering this fact, the respondent No. 2 refused to release the
vehicles of the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no
evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner and therefore, the
entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner are vitiated
for non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
Learned
Assistant Government Pleader defended the action of the respondents
and submitted that the petition may be dismissed.
Heard
learned advocates for the respective parties.
As
a result of hearing and on perusal of the record it is found that
the permission was granted by the respondent No. 2 for 1000 Metric
Tons and the validity period was from 19.11.2009 to 25.11.2009 by
putting condition to pay Rs. 5/- per tone royalty amount. By
complying with the same Rs. 5000/- was already paid by the
petitioner. Subsequently as the work was not over, the second
permission was obtained by the petitioner and the same was granted
by respondent No.2 for about 2000 Metric Tons for the period from
26.11.2009 to 15.12.2009 vide order dated 26.11.2009. It is also
found that on 26.11.2009 the officers of the respondent No. 2 seized
four trucks of the petitioner on the ground that the same is
utilized in transportation without any valid pass or permits.
However, the fact remains that on that very day the permission was
taken. Even though the petitioner has pointed out the same, the
respondent authority has proceeded further and seized the vehicles.
Thereafter, the show cause notice was issued. In any case there was
requisite permission and on that ground the vehicles could not have
been detained and the detention is without any authority of law.
Further the vehicles are of different owners. Even the owners have
filed undertaking to furnish security/bond release of the vehicle.
Learned
Assistant Government Pleader is not in a position to show that on
the day in question there was no permission. In fact the permission
was taken on the very same day. Therefore, the impugned action is
illegal and arbitrary.
In
the premises aforesaid, the respondent No. 2 shall hand over four
trucks bearing Nos. GJ-18-AT-8201, GJ-18-AT-9074, GJ-18-X-9625 and
GJ-18-AT-9407 to the petitioner within 24 hours from the date of
receipt of the writ of this order. Petition is allowed to the
aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
With
the above observation, petition stands disposed of. Direct service
is permitted.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
niru*
Top