IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17189 of 2025 ==========================================================

BECHARBHAI MOHANBHAI SINDHAV Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR JIGAR L PATEL(11596) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 17/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate for the parties.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of all the respondents.

3. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

4. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction to quash and set aside the action of the respondent authorities of seizing the Tractor bearing Registration No.GJ-13-CA-7883 and release the same since no FIR or police complaint has been filed by the respondent authorities.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner came to be seized on 29.07.2025 on the allegation that the said vehicle is used for excavation of carbocell. Learned counsel submits that in terms of Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (for short “the Rules, 2017”), the respondent authorities are obligated to file a complaint within a period of 45 days from the date of such seizure. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner is not aware if any FIR or complaint has been filed by the revenue authorities. He submits that in view thereof, there is a breach of Rule 12 of the Rules, 2017 and therefore, the prayer as prayed for be granted and the vehicle so seized by the revenue authorities be released in favour of the petitioner, who is the owner of the vehicle.

6. Learned AGP Mr. Nikunj Kanara appearing for the respondent authorities, upon instructions of Mr.J.S.Vadher, Geologist, Surendranagar, submits that no complaint has been filed yet and therefore, appropriate orders may be passed in the present case.

7. 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 vehicle will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized without insisting for the bank guarantee.

8. 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. Tractor bearing Registration No.GJ-13-CA-7883. 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.

9. 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.

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

cmk