Obligatory To File An FIR For Seizing Vehicles Under The Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court Directs Release Of Tractor Without Bank Guarantee

Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati of the Gujarat High Court has recently held that it is 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 the absence of such exercise, the Court noted, the purpose of seizure and bank guarantee would stand frustrated and consequently, the property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for the bank guarantee. The High Court made this observation while hearing a petition under article 226 wherein the Petitioner had sought the quashment of the order by Respondent authority for release of his tractor. It was the Respondent's case that the Petitioner's vehicle was doing mining activity without valid royalty pass and till the final order of the concerned authority, Respondent No. 4 authority would have kept the vehicle safely. In February 2021, Respondent No. 2 had issued common notice by stating that the illegal mining of 70 metric ton of ordinary sand was done without legally authorised e-royalty for which the compounding fee was INR 2 lakhs (tractor) and INR 25000 for empty tractor and 12,250 for illegal mining of 70 metric ton of ordinary sand was imposed. The total penalty was INR 2,37,250. A further environmental compensation fund penalty was also imposed worth INR 5023. Averring that the Respondents had issued show cause notice but did not take any steps or register an FIR as provided in Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. Further, in Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.9203 of 2020, it was held that in absence of complaint, the competent authority will have no option but to release the seized vehicle without bank guarantee. Per contra, it was conceded by the Respondents that no FIR was registered in consonance with Rules of 2017 and no orders were passed pursuant to the show cause notice. Justice Nanavati, while taking note of the Nathubhai judgement and Rule 12 of the 2017 Rules observed: "Thus where the offence is not compounded or not compoundable 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 this exercise, the purpose of seizure and the bank guarantee would stand frustrated; resultantly the property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized, without insisting for the bank guarantee." Further noting that in the instant case, no FIR was filed, the Bench allowed the petition and directed the Authorities to release the tractor. It was also directed that the Petitioner appear and file necessary reply to the Show Cause Notice in accordance with law. Case Title: Vajekarnabhai Nanubhai Satya vs State Of Gujarat Case No.: C/SCA/3486/2022 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Obligatory To File An FIR For Seizing Vehicles Under The Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court Directs Release Of Tractor Without Bank Guarantee

PRIYANKA PREET

Tags