A mining-seizure complaint filed before a Magistrate is non-est; the seized vehicle must be released.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Tata Motors dumper/truck bearing Registration No. GJ-16-AW-9963, which was seized by respondent No. 2 on 19 June 2026 under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (“2017 Rules”).

The petitioner contended that the authorities had not taken the steps required under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), including filing a complaint before the competent Court of Sessions within the prescribed framework, and sought release of the vehicle.

The respondents stated that a complaint had been filed on 3 August 2026 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, being Criminal Case No. 1447 of 2026.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was non-est because Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) required it to be filed before the Court of Sessions.

Whether a complaint under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the 2017 Rules is required to be filed before the Court of Sessions, and whether the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, was without jurisdiction.

Whether, in view of the complaint having been filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction, the petitioner’s seized vehicle was required to be released without insisting upon a bank guarantee.

The Court applied Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, as amended in 2019.

Rule 12(2)(a) permits release of seized property upon furnishing a bank guarantee corresponding to the applicable penalty or the written-down value of the property.

Under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), where compounding is unavailable or the offence is non-compoundable, the authorised officer must, after the prescribed period or completion of investigation, approach the Court of Sessions by a written complaint; the Explanation to the Rule provides that offences under the Rules are to be tried by the Court of Sessions.

Rule 12(7) governs custody of the seized property until release against a bank guarantee, payment of the determined amount or an order of the Court.

The Court relied on the principle stated in Special Civil Application No. 9213 of 2020, decided on 6 November 2020, that continued retention of a seized vehicle is unauthorised where the State fails to follow Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), and that a bank guarantee cannot be insisted upon in the absence of a properly instituted prosecution or compounding proceedings.

The judgment also refers to Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat in this context.

Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) expressly required the respondent authority to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint.

Although the respondents claimed to have filed a complaint on 3 August 2026, it was filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, a forum that lacked jurisdiction under the Rules.

Applying the reasoning in Special Civil Application No. 9213 of 2020, the Court held that filing before an incompetent forum could not validate the continued seizure or confer lawful authority upon the respondents to retain the vehicle.

Since the statutory procedure for placing the matter before the competent Sessions Court had not been followed, the authority could not rely on the defective complaint to resist release of the vehicle.

The Court expressly limited its consideration to the issue of release and did not adjudicate the merits of the alleged offence.

It therefore directed the respondents to release the Tata Motors dumper/truck bearing Registration No. GJ-16-AW-9963.

The respondents were granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the competent forum.

The petition was allowed in part, Rule was made absolute to that extent, and no order as to costs was made.