JAYESH TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted. Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Government Pleader appears and waives service of notice of admission. In the facts and circumstances of the case, LPA is taken for final hearing today.

(2.) This appeal is filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.C.A. No. 4949 of 1998 summarily dismissing it on 20th July, 1998.

(3.) The case of the appellant-petitioner was that he despatched goods i.e., 10 metric tone ground nut in truck bearing registraiton No. GJ-11-4-9421 along with necessary bill, gate pass, etc., to Chandraprabhu Trading Company, Sangli (Maharashtra) on May 8, 1998. On may 11, 1998, the truck was detained at Ahawa Check post inter alia alleging that the petitioner was carrying goods illegally in the State of Maharashta. The goods were also seized. On 12.5.1998, the petitioner approached the District Supply Officer (for short 'DSO') for release of goods as well as truck. The DSO passed an order on 13th May, 1998, directing the petitioner to give bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 2.5 lacs towards the goods in question. As regards the truck, the DSO directed the petitioner to furnish undertaking on non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 20/- that would keep the truck in plying condition and he would not sale/transfer or alienate it during pendency of the proceeding. It appears that being aggrieved by the order passed by DSO, the petitioner approached the Collector in which grievance was made that the DSO has committed an error in directing the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 2.5 lacs for goods, as the goods were worth Rs. 1.85 lacs. It is case of the petitioner that not only his appeal for reduction of bank guarantee from Rs. 2.5 lacs to Rs. 1.85 lacs in respect of goods, was dismissed but without issuing any notice and without affording opportunity and without complying with principles of natural justice, the Collector directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee of Rs. 2.5 lacs even in respect of truck in question. Being aggrieved by that order passed by the Collector, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the above petition. The learned Single Judge was of the view that a decision taken by the Collector could not be said to be illegal or contrary to law particularly in view of the fact that there were suspicious cicumstances as mentioned in the order passed by the Collector. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge.