Gujarat Mining Rules | Seized Property Must Be Produced Before Court Along With Written Complaint Within Expiry Of 45 Days: High Court
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that it is obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties before the Court on expiry of 45 days from the date of seizure, as specified under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.In the absence of such an...
The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that it is obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties before the Court on expiry of 45 days from the date of seizure, as specified under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
In the absence of such an exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated and consequently, the property will have to be released to the person from whom it was seized without bank guarantee, the court added.
Justice AS Supehia made this observation in connection with the seizure of the tractor under the Mining Rules. The vehicle was kept in custody with the Sarpanch after an inspection. The Petitioner submitted that he made several requests for the release of the vehicle before the State authorities but the same were not addressed. The vehicle was kept in custody and even after passage of 58 days, which was alleged to be in contravention of Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Mining Rules.
The Rule prescribes that after a preliminary investigation, and if compounding is not permissible under rule 22 or if the investigator is satisfied that the offence committed in respect of the property is not compoundable, upon the expiry of forty-five days from the date of seizure or upon completion of the investigation, whichever is earlier, shall approach by way of making a written complaint, before the Court of Sessions.
The Additional Govt Pleader submitted that as per his information, no criminal proceedings had been initiated and no FIR was filed pursuant to the seizure of the vehicle under Rule 12 of the Mining Rules.
While referring to Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Mining Rules, the High Court concluded that the detention of the vehicle could not be continued. Reference was made to Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara Vs. State of Gujarat to observe:
"Pertinently the competent authority under Rule 12 is only authorized to seize the property investigate the offence and compound it; the penalty can imposed and confiscation of the property can be done only by order of the court…There is thus a huge misconception on the part of the authority to assert that even in absence of the complaint it would have a dominance over the seized property and that it can insist for a bank guarantee for this."
Keeping in view this decision, the High Court allowed the petition, and the seizure of the tractor was set aside. The Respondent authority was directed to release the vehicle.
Case No.: C/SCA/10644/2022
Case Title: SOLANKI HARIBHAI ARJANBHAI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 263