ORDER : 1. Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent-State authorities. 2. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “(a) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (b) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the illegal action of the respondents of closing down the online account of issuance of delivery challan pass in respect of quarry lease for ordinary sand situated opposite Survey No. 104 to 107 at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand. (bb) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 29.03.2022 received by the petitioner on 09.04.2022. (bbb) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the action of the respondent no. 3 of illegally seizing boat with other material from the lease area of the petitioner on 07.04.2022. (bbbb) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the for release of the boat along with the machinery seized on 07.04.2022. (c) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, direct the respondent no. 3 to immediately open the online account of issuance of delivery challan pass in respect of quarry lease for ordinary sand situated opposite Survey No. 104 to 107 at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand. (cc) Pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, stay the implementation and operation of the notice dated 29.03.2022 received by the petitioner on 09.04.2022.” (d) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice.” 4.1 It is the grievance of learned advocate for the petitioner Mr. Shah assisted by learned advocate Ms. Pandya that the petitioner was granted lease opposite to Survey No. 104 to 107 admeasuring 01-00-00 Hec. Are. Sq mtr for ordinary sand at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand vide order dated 27.06.1995 and the same was extended upto 31.03.2022. Shah assisted by learned advocate Ms. Pandya that the petitioner was granted lease opposite to Survey No. 104 to 107 admeasuring 01-00-00 Hec. Are. Sq mtr for ordinary sand at village Pratappura, Taluka Umreth, District Anand vide order dated 27.06.1995 and the same was extended upto 31.03.2022. 4.2 It is the case of the petitioner that without issuing any notice or without informing the petitioner, in any manner, online account of issuance of royalty pass for the lease having No. QL2207005414 was closed down w.e.f. 10.02.2022. 4.3 Though the petitioner made detailed representation against the said action vide representation dated 21.03.2022, the same was not considered by the respondent authorities. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that even thereafter by acting highhandedly the respondent seized boat and other materials on 07.04.2022 and though the aforesaid boat was seized by the respondent authorities, no FIR was registered though the period of 45 days from the date on which the said boat was seized was over long back. The petitioner also raised grievance that as per Rule 43 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2017, 60 days notice is required to be given to the petitioner. However, as against that, respondents have given a notice dated 29.03.2022 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why his lease should not be cancelled and directed the petitioner to submit his reply within a period of one week before 07.04.2022 and hence the present petition is preferred. 5.1 Learned advocate Ms.Shah pointed out that thereafter vide order dated 15.06.2022, the coordinate Bench of this Court granted ad interim relief in terms of Para 8(cc) in favour of the petitioner, which reads as under, which is still operating in favour of the petitioner: “1. At the outset, learned advocate Ms. Shah, has submitted that the deponent-Kirankumar Naranbhai Parmar, Assistant Geologist-II working in the Geology and Mining Department of the respondent No. 3 has made a false and incorrect statement in paragraph No. 7 to 10 of the Affidavit-in-reply dated 2.5.22 by stating that the show cause notice which was sent to the petitioner through RPAD and the said notice was received by the petitioner on 31.03.2022 and the acknowledgment receipt bears the signature of the present petitioner. Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the entries of the post office department and more particularly, the document at page No. 20, wherein the petitioner has put the signature on the receipt and has mentioned the date as 09.04.2022. Prima facie, from the document it is established that the petitioner has received the said notice on 09.04.2022 and not on the date suggested by the deponent in the affidavit. 2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader shall file additional affidavit clarifying this statement on or before the next date of hearing. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Shah, in support of her averments made in the petition has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various decisions of this Court, one of them being order dated 03.09.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No. 10143 of 2020 and allied matter. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid facts, ad-interim relief in paragraph No. 8(cc) is granted, till the next date of hearing. 4. The matter is kept on 27.06.2022. Direct service is permitted.” 5.2 Today, learned advocate Ms.Shah submitted that the action of respondent authorities of closing online account of the petitioner for issuance of royalty passes in violation of principles of natural justice is required to be quashed and set aside for the reason that Rules of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Shortage and Transportation) Rules, 2017 (‘the Rules, 2017’ for short), more particularly Rule 5(4) of ‘the Rules 2017’ provides for reasons to be recorded in writing before suspending the issuance of transit permit. In the instant case, no reasons in writing are recorded before closing online account of the petitioner. She further submitted that the boat seized by the authority was seized on 07.04.2022 and though more than 45 days thereafter is over, till the date no FIR is registered and, therefore, in view of the Rule 2(b) of ‘the Rules 2017’ if an FIR is not registered against the concerned person within 45 days, the vehicle seized by the authority is required to be released by the authority. 5.3 Learned advocate Ms. 5.3 Learned advocate Ms. Shah further submitted that the authority though vide notice dated 30.03.2022 asked the petitioner to show cause as to why the lease in favour of the petitioner should not be terminated, Rule 43 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral (Concession) Rules, 2017 provides that the respondents were required to give 60 days’ notice to the petitioner and, therefore, notice dated 30.03.2022 is erroneous and, therefore, requires to be quashed and set aside. 5.4 Learned advocate Ms. Shah further submitted that in the instant case, the notice issued by respondents on 29.03.2022 was not served upon the petitioner till 09.04.2022 and therefore also the petitioner could not give suitable reply to the aforesaid notice within time framed prescribed in the said notice i.e. 07.04.2022. 5.5 No other submissions were made by learned advocate Ms. Shah for the petitioner, nor any other authority of any Court of Law were cited. 6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Mehta, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the aforesaid petition. However, he could not point out anything from the record which would suggest that Rule 5(4) of ‘the Rules 2017’ were complied with by the authority by recording the reasons in writing before closing down online account of the petitioner. 6.2 Further, learned Assistant Government Pleader also could not point out that as to why though from the period of 45 days is over from the date of seizure of boat, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the respondent authorities of closing down the online account of the petitioner for issuance of royalty passes or the issue regarding seizure of the petitioner boat is concerned, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta could not point out anything which may indicate that the aforesaid action of the respondent authority was justified. 6.3 As far as validity of the notice dated 29.03.2022 is concerned, learned advocate Ms. Shah as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader both made various submissions in respect of validity of the notice. However, considering the fact that notice dated 29.03.2022 for cancellation of lease is merely a notice for which this Court is of the view that by keeping rights and contentions of both the sides open, petitioner is required to be relegated to the authority to file his reply pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2022. However, considering the fact that notice dated 29.03.2022 for cancellation of lease is merely a notice for which this Court is of the view that by keeping rights and contentions of both the sides open, petitioner is required to be relegated to the authority to file his reply pursuant to the notice dated 29.03.2022. 7.1 In view of above, considering the fact that the provisions of Rule 5(4) of the Rules, 2017 and admittedly not complied with by the respondent authority, action of the respondent authority of closing down online account of the petitioner is required to be quashed and set aside, and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. 7.2 In view of the fact that even after seizure of boat of the petitioner on 07.04.2022, the respondents did not file any FIR against the present petitioner, considering the provisions of the Rules and considering the catena of decisions taking view that if no FIR is registered against the concerned person within 45 days from the date of seizure, I direct the authority concerned to release the boat and other equipment seized by the authority forthwith. 7.3 Further as far as notice dated 29.03.2022 is concerned, without entering into merits of the matter and without examining the legality and validity of the notice, the petitioner is directed to file reply to the notice and the respondents are directed to give sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before adjudicating the notice more particularly keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 43 of the Gujarat Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2017 by keeping all the rights and contentions of petitioner open. Further, respondent authorities are directed to pass reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised by the petitioner while deciding the show cause notice dated 29.03.2022. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.