Seizure of vehicle under Mineral Rules is unsustainable if complaint is not filed within the stipulated period.

The petitioner’s vehicle, a Tractor (registration No. GJ-13-CB-8719), was seized by respondent authorities on December 11, 2025, on allegations of illegal mining or transportation

Despite the passage of time, the authorities failed to file a formal written complaint before the Court of Sessions as required by the statutory rules

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the immediate release of the vehicle

1. Whether the continued seizure of the vehicle is legally sustainable in the absence of a formal written complaint filed within the stipulated period under the relevant Rules

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the vehicle without the requirement of providing a bank guarantee when procedural mandates are not followed

The Court applied the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development) Act, 1957, read with the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017

The core legal principle established is that it is obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce seized properties within the period stipulated by the 2017 Rules

Failure to adhere to these procedural timelines renders the continued detention of the property unauthorized, as the purpose of seizure and bank guarantees is frustrated in the absence of a formal complaint

The Court reasoned that the statutory authority to detain property is contingent upon following the procedural safeguards laid down in the 2017 Rules

During the proceedings, the Assistant Government Pleader, based on instructions from the Geologist, Surendranagar, conceded that no complaint had been filed since the seizure in December 2025

Applying established precedents, the Court found that when the investigator fails to transit from an administrative seizure to a judicial proceeding via a written complaint within the prescribed time, the authority loses its legal right to hold the property. Consequently, insisting on a bank guarantee for the release of the vehicle under such circumstances would be inequitable and contrary to the law

The Court held that in the absence of a timely complaint, the continued seizure was without statutory authority. Rule was made absolute; however, the Court clarified that this order is limited to the release of the vehicle and does not preclude the authorities from initiating future legal proceedings in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made