Complaint Over Use Of Vehicle For 'Illegal Mining' Not Maintainable Before Magistrate, Session Court Is Correct Forum: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that a complaint over illegal mining in respect of a seized vehicle must be lodged before the Sessions Court as mandated under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules and that such a complaint can't be filed before magistrate court.
As per Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) makes it obligatory for the authorized officer to approach the Court of Sessions with a written complaint and seized properties upon expiry of the 45 days period specified under the Rules. In the absence of such an exercise, the seized vehicle will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for bank guarantee.
The plea sought a direction to set aside the seizure of a dumper truck and release to the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that in absence of any F.I.R. registered beyond the specified period, the action of the respondent authority seizing the vehicle, is illegal. It was submitted that if the complaint is not registered as envisaged under Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017, in absence of the complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle without insisting for any bank guarantee.
State said that complaint has been filed before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra on 03.08.2026 being Criminal Case No.1447 of 2026. However petitioner said this was against the Rules and such a complaint can only be maintainable before a court of sessions.
Justice Nirzar S Desai referred to 2020 petition wherein the same issue was discussed after considering identical facts. In this case the high court had held that the complaint is to be filed before the Court of Sessions under Rule 12(2) of the 2017 Rules.
The court had held that the rule provides that for an offence under the Rules, the same will be tried by Court of Sessions in accordance with the procedure laid down under the CrPC, Considering Rule-12 of the Rules, 2017 and the Notification dated 29th July, 2023 duly produced by the petitioner, the competent forum is Sessions Court, wherein, the complaint is to be filed.
The high court noted that Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State was not in a position to controvert this position of law and the Notification.
"Considering the facts of the present case, and the ratio as laid down, in Special Civil Application No.9213 of 2020 dated 06th November, 2020 as referred above, as also Scheme of Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), as referred above, respondent authority was required to approach the learned Sessions Court under the provisions of Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 2017. In absence of the aforesaid exercise undertaken by the competent authority, the complaint in question came to be filed in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra would be non-est in the eye of law. At the cost of repetition, the complaint is maintainable before the Court of Sessions under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 2017 (Amended Rule, 2019)," the court said.
Allowing the plea the court directed the State to release the seized dumper truck.
"It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the issue involved and the observations made are only for the limited purpose of releasing the vehicle,"the court said.
Case title: CONMIX INFRA v/s THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11891 of 2026