VINODBHAI GOVINDBHAI OAD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Ayaan Patel, the learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the respondent State.

(2.) By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs

(3.) The petitioner herein is the owner of the Truck No. GJ-19-Y-5701, which came to be seized by the respondent authority on 13/3/2023, by issuing Form-J. Notice for penalty came to be issued on 29/3/2023 to the owner of the lease for illegal excavation of sand, which is duly produced at Page-15. An order imposing penalty came to be passed by the respondent authority on 17/4/2023 qua Hiren Girishbhai Shah. A complaint came to be lodged before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Navsari against the petitioner by the respondent authority, registered as 61 of 2023, on 27/4/2023 by the Mines Supervisor, Navsari being respondent No.2 against Hiren Girishbhai Shah, however, on perusal of the complaint it is notices that the petitioner herein is not arraigned as accused in the array of parties. Under such circumstances, Mr. Mansuri, the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle in question came to be seized by the respondent authority on 13/3/2023. The respondent authority instituted a complaint by filing complaint being 61/2023 before the learned Sessions Judge, Navsari, which is on 46th day of the seizure of the vehicle. Reliance was placed on Rule 22 of the Rules 2017 and submitted that complaint is filed by the respondent authority being 61/2023 with the Sessions Judge, Navsari, the vehicle in question be released on solvent surety, the same being after 45 days. Reliance was placed in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat , rendered in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020.