Illegal Mining | 45 Days Period To Register FIR From Date Of Seizing Machinery Under Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 Is Mandatory: High Court

The Gujarat High Court has reiterated that registration of FIR within a period of 45 days from the date of seizing machinery allegedly involved in illegal mining activities is mandatory under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, failing which, the authorities concerned would be liable to release the seized material.

The Single bench of Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati relied on Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, where a predecessor bench had held that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the machines, is illegal.

The bench was hearing a writ application for directing the release three chaff cutter machines and electric motor and generator which belonged to the Petitioner who is alleged to have been involved in illegal mining. The machines were seized from the Petitioner and penalty of INR 10,82,390 was imposed by the State authority vide a show cause notice of January 2022.

However, the Petitioner pointed out that no FIR was registered by the State authority which was illegal and contrary to principles laid down in Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat where it was held that in the absence of a complaint, the authority must release seized machines without insisting for bank guarantee. Reference was made to the provisions of the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017 which mandate that FIR should be filed within a period of 45 days from the date of seizure and the absence of the same would result in the release of machines.

"It is undisputed that seizure memo was issued on 13.01.2022 followed by the show cause notice dated 25.1.2022. It is not disputed rather conceded that within a period of 45 days, no First Information Report has been registered by the respondent authority. Therefore, the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat (supra) applies to the facts of the present case," the High Court observed.

It noted that in Nathubhai Jinabhai (supra), there was a categorical observation by the Court that mere submission of a bank guarantee would not absolve the investigator from its duty of instituting the case on failure of compounding of the offence. Thus, in absence of the complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized machines without insisting for bank guarantee.

It was also held therein that it would be obligatory for the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the Court on expiry of the specified period. In absence of such exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated.

In this backdrop and in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the High Court ordered directed the respondent to release the machines of the writ-applicant pending adjudication before the Sessions Court on the condition the writ-applicant deposits solvent surety equivalent to the amount of penalty with the competent Court. 

Case Title: RAJESHKUMAR UMESHGIRI GAUSWAMI v/s STATE OF GUJARAT

Click Here To Read/Download Order