DILIPBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief/s:

(2.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Satyam Chhaya for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Rohan Yagnik for the respondents.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Chhaya for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question i.e. Dumper bearing registration No.GJ-24-X-9800. The elder brother of the petitioner is registered stockiest under the provisions of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2017'). The petitioner is engaged in the business of transportation of goods including the mineral. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner used to transport the ordinary sand stored at the stockyard of the brother of the petitioner to different area as per the orders given by the concerned persons. It is submitted that on 20th July, 2018, the driver of the petitioner had loaded 15 MT of ordinary sand from the stockyard of the brother of the petitioner and the royalty passes/delivery challans were also available with the driver of the petitioner. It is submitted that the royalty passes /delivery challans were issued on 20.07.2018 at 4:23 p.m. Thereafter the vehicle of the petitioner was started from the stockyard and was going towards Kalol. The said vehicle was intercepted between stockyard and Shihori three roads. The driver of the petitioner had shown the royalty passes to the respondent No.4. In spite of that the vehicle in question is seized by the respondent No.4 at 4:25 p.m. Learned advocate for the petitioner has referred the averments made in the petition with regard to the mala fide intention on the part of the respondent nos. 3 and 4. It is submitted that the respondent no.3 had issued notice to the brother of the petitioner with regard to the stockyard from which the mineral was loaded in the vehicle in question and because of the said proceeding, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized illegally though the driver of the petitioner was having valid royalty passes.