HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J
NARENDRABHAI @ NARANDRASING BALDEVSINH RATHOD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13692 of 2024
(A) Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 - Seizure of vehicle - Petitioner’s vehicle seized without filing a complaint as per the Rules - Court held that in absence of a complaint, the seizure is not authorized and directed the release of the vehicle. (Paras 3, 5, 6)
(B) Legal Obligation - It is obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties within the stipulated period under the Rules. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 17.5.2024, and no complaint was filed by the respondents as required under the Rules. The petitioner sought the release of the vehicle pending proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the seizure was unauthorized due to the absence of a complaint and directed the release of the vehicle without requiring a bank guarantee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the seizure of the vehicle was lawful in the absence of a complaint filed as per the Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the authority to continue the seizure was not valid without a complaint, emphasizing the necessity of following procedural requirements under the Rules.
Result: The vehicle was ordered to be released.
ORDER :
1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives serves of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized on 17.5.2024 by the respondent authorities and till date, no complaint has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel submits that since the complaint has not been filed as per provisions of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, the petitioner is entitled to release of his vehicle, being Excavator Machine R215L Smart Plus Hyundai Excavator having registration Engine No.12H84952925 MSN:HYNDN635HE0004386, pending the proceedings. Learned counsel in support of his contentions places reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 8.8.2024 in Special Civil Application No.8664 of 2024.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents upon instructions received from Mr. Abhijit Dubey, Law Officer, submits that no complaint has been filed yet and that therefore, appropriate order may be passed in the present case.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is revealed that no complaint has not been filed within the stipulated period of time under the Rules, 2017. Various orders have been passed by this Court, wherein it has been held that it would be obligatory on the part of the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties before the Court within the stipulated period under the Rules. In absence of such exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated. Resultantly, the property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized without insisting for the bank guarantee.
6. In view of the enunciation of law and in absence of any complaint filed, it would not be within the authority of the respondent No.2 to continue seizure of the vehicle and therefore, the authority concerned is directed to forthwith release the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Excavator Machine R215L Smart Plus Hyundai Excavator having registration Engine No.12H84952925 MSN: HYNDN635HE0004386. It is clarified that the present writ petition has been entertained only for the limited purpose of releasing the vehicle of the petitioner. It will be open to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available in law. It is also clarified that this order shall not preclude the officers to initiate any proceedings, in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no observation is made thereon.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present Special Civil Application stands DISPOSED OF. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
Seizure of a vehicle without filing a complaint as mandated by the Gujarat Mineral Rules is unauthorized, necessitating its release.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.