Failure by authorities to file a complaint within the stipulated period under the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, necessitates the release of seized property to the owner without insisting on a bank guarantee.

JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Nikunj Kanara waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

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

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized on 21.01.2026 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 Sany Hydraulic Excavator, Model SY140C-9, Serial No.SY014CE0154D8 pending the proceedings. Learned advocate in support of his contentions places reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9203 of 2020.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that, initially complaint was filed against three persons namely, Mukeshbhai Karshanbhai Bharwad, Shahrukhkhan Rahiskhan Pathan and Divyangbhai Parmar on 16.03.2026, and Shahrukhkhan Rahiskhan Pathan happens to be the nephew of the petitioner, however, the present petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle in question, the authority has seized the vehicle of the present petitioner. He has further submitted that, however, upon instructions received from Mr. Chandresh Parmar, Geologist, Kheda, the case has been withdrawn on 06.04.2026 and no FIR is registered and that therefore, appropriate orders may be passed in the present case.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 authority to continue seizure of the vehicle and therefore, the authority concerned is directed to forthwith release the vehicle of the petitioner. 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 ofÏcers 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 petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

Direct Service is permitted.