Mining-rule complaints must be filed before the Sessions Court; Magistrate-filed complaints are non-est.

The petitioner claimed ownership of a Komatsu Hydraulic Excavator PC210LC-10MO, Serial No. N734196, which was seized by the respondent authorities 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 timely steps under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), including filing a complaint before the competent Court of Sessions, and sought release of the vehicle.

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

The petitioner argued that the complaint was non-maintainable because Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) required the complaint to be made 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 a complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was without jurisdiction.

Whether the petitioner’s seized vehicle was required to be released where the authorities had not complied with the procedure prescribed under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii).

Whether the High Court should limit its determination to release of the vehicle without adjudicating the merits of the alleged offence.

The Court applied Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, which requires the authorised officer, where compounding is impermissible or the offence is non-compoundable, to approach the Court of Sessions by a written complaint upon expiry of 45 days from seizure or completion of investigation, whichever is earlier.

Rule 12(7) governs custody of seized property until release against bank guarantee, payment of compounding or penalty amounts, or receipt of a court order directing disposal.

The Court relied on Special Civil Application No. 9213 of 2020, decided on 6 November 2020, which held that continued retention of the seized property without filing a complaint before the Sessions Court was unauthorised, and that the vehicle had to be released without insisting upon a bank guarantee.

The Court also referred to the notification dated 29 July 2023 concerning the competent forum.

Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) expressly designates the Court of Sessions as the forum before which the authorised officer must file the written complaint in cases where compounding is unavailable or not pursued.

Although the State filed a complaint after seizure, it filed it before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, rather than before the Sessions Court.

Following the ratio of SCA No. 9213 of 2020, the Court held that filing before a court lacking jurisdiction could not amount to compliance with Rule 12(2)(b)(ii).

Consequently, the complaint was treated as non-est for the purpose of continued retention of the vehicle, and the authorities could not insist on a bank guarantee while retaining custody.

The Court confined its consideration to the legality of the vehicle’s continued seizure and did not examine the merits of the alleged offence.

The High Court directed the respondent authorities to release the Komatsu Hydraulic Excavator PC210LC-10MO, Serial No. N734196, since the complaint had been filed before a forum lacking jurisdiction under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii).

The State was granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the alleged offence and that its directions were limited to release of the vehicle.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.