Seizure of property without filing an FIR within the stipulated time is illegal; complaints under the Gujarat Mineral Rules must be filed in the Sessions Court.

ORDER :

1. RULE. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent-State.

2. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein prays for the 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 action of respondents of seizing the vehicle at ANNEXURE-B and release the EXCAVATOR MODEL NO-ZX 220M, IDENTIFICATION NO-THEDCOLOA00001767, of the ownership of the petitioner which is seized by the respondents and at present the case is pending with the respondent, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit.

(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction for releasing the EXCAVATOR MODEL NO-ZX 220M, IDENTIFICATION NO-THEDCOLOA00001767, of the ownership of the petitioner which is seized by the respondents and at present the case is pending with the respondent, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem think fit.

(d) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, your lordships may be pleased to release the vehicle being EXCAVATOR MODEL NO-ZX 220M, IDENTIFICATION NO-THEDCOLOA00001767, on appropriate terms and conditions that may be deem fit and proper to this Hon'ble court.

(e) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice.”

3. Heard Mr. Jay N. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Vyas, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle being EXCAVATOR MODEL NO-ZX 220M, IDENTIFICATION NO-THEDCOLOA00001767 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle in question') and the vehicle in question was seized by respondent No.2 on 27.07.2024 and seizure memo was issued, which is duly produced at Annnexure "B". Notice pertaining to the same was also issued.

5. Mr. Jay N. Shah, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that as is clear from the seizure memo, the same was issued on 27.07.2024; however, no steps worth the name have been initiated by the respondent, much less filing the F.I.R. as provided under sub-clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2017”). It is submitted that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the vehicle, is illegal and against the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, rendered in Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020. It is submitted that, this Court has categorically held and observed that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of sub-clause (b) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017, in absence of the complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee. Therefore, the principles laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. It is therefore urged that the petition deserves to be allowed directing the respondent authorities to release the vehicle. It is urged that the petition be entertained only for the limited purpose of release of the vehicle.

6. Per contra, Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned AGP for the respondent authority submitted that the respondent authority has filed complaint being Crimin