MITESHKUMAR CHIMANBHAI GURJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications have been preferredfor modification of the condition imposed by this Court while passing the common order dated 29.06.2020 in Special Criminal Application Nos.117/2020 and 118/2020 whereby, the applicants have been asked to furnish two unconditional bank guarantees to the extent of 1.5 times the value of the vehicles in question.

(2.) Mr. Vikas Nair, learned advocate appearing for Mr. Nimesh Patel, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the condition to furnish bank guarantees to the extent of 1.5 times the value of the vehicles in question is proving burdensome to the applicants as the bank officials are mandating a condition to deposit 110% of the entire amount for issuance of a certificate for bank guarantee. While drawing attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint, it was submitted that the vehicles in question were not seized and as observed by this Court in the order itself, the authorized officer had not issued the requisite "Form-J" to the applicants calling upon the applicants to furnish bank guarantee for the release of the vehicles in question. It was further contended that the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 would not be applicable since Patel, learned advocate for the applicants, submitted that the condition to furnish bank guarantees to the extent of 1.5 times the value of the vehicles in question is proving burdensome to the applicants as the bank officials are mandating a condition to deposit 110% of the entire amount for issuance of a certificate for bank guarantee. While drawing attention of the Court to the contents of the complaint, it was submitted that the vehicles in question were not seized and as observed by this Court in the order itself, the authorized officer had not issued the requisite "Form-J" to the applicants calling upon the applicants to furnish bank guarantee for the release of the vehicles in question. It was further contended that the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 would not be applicable since "Form-J" was never issued, more so, when the vehicles in question were never seized by the authorized officer and hence, there was no seizure under the provisions of the Rules. It was submitted that the vehicles were, in fact, seized by the police and therefore, the provisions of Rule- 12 of the Rules cannot be invoked. It was, accordingly, urged that the condition to furnish bank guarantee ought not to have been imposed and thereby, prayed to modify the said condition so that the order to release the vehicles in question could be implemented.

(3.) Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, relied upon the police report, to submit that four vehicles were found to be loaded with sand without any pass or permit and when the said vehicles were intercepted by the officials, the occupants in the vehicles initiated an attack on the officials. Thereafter, the sand was dumped at a nearby place, which incident was video-graphed by the team of officials on their mobile phones. It was submitted that the officials initiated necessary procedure for seizure of the vehicles; however, at that time, five persons who had reached the spot under the information of the occupiers of the vehicles in question, obstructed the officials from performing their duties and assaulted them with sticks / stones. When the seizure memo was attempted to be served to them, they fled from the place along relied upon the police report, to submit that four vehicles were found to be loaded with sand without any pass or permit and when the said vehicles were intercepted by the officials, the occupants in the vehicles initiated an attack on the officials. Thereafter, the sand was dumped at a nearby place, which incident was video-graphed by the team of officials on their mobile phones. It was submitted that the officials initiated necessary procedure for seizure of the vehicles; however, at that time, five persons who had reached the spot under the information of the occupiers of the vehicles in question, obstructed the officials from performing their duties and assaulted them with sticks / stones. When the seizure memo was attempted to be served to them, they fled from the place along with the vehicles. It was contended that the provisions of Rules - 12(2) and 12(7) of the Rules provides for furnishment of bank guarantee as soon as a vehicle is seized and therefore, he stated that the impugned order passed by this Court is in consonance with the provisions of the said Rules.