- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Gujarat Mining Rules | Seized...
Gujarat Mining Rules | Seized Property Along With Written Complaint Must Be Produced Before Competent Court Within 45 Days: High Court
PRIYANKA PREET
7 Sep 2022 4:00 AM GMT
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has clarified in the context of the Gujarat Mining Rules, 2017 that the investigator must approach the Sessions Court with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the Court on the expiry of the specified time period. Failure to do this exercise, would result in the frustration of seizure and bank guarantee. Consequently, the...
In a recent order, the Gujarat High Court has clarified in the context of the Gujarat Mining Rules, 2017 that the investigator must approach the Sessions Court with a written complaint and produce the seized properties with the Court on the expiry of the specified time period. Failure to do this exercise, would result in the frustration of seizure and bank guarantee. Consequently, the seized property will have to be released in favour of the person from whom it was seized without bank guarantee.
The instant observation of Justice Desai came in the background of a Petitioner seeking release of his vehicle seized by the Respondent authorities.
The Petitioner submitted that he was the owner of the vehicle and had given it to another person on a rental basis to operate the same in a 'legal manner' by obtaining the pass permit and the royalty pass for mining purposes. However, subsequently, an inspection was carried out by the Authorities and the vehicle was found mining simple sand mineral without royalty pass. Resultantly, a show cause notice was issued for payment of penalty.
The Petitioner stated that he had not received any notice till date and he had not committed the offence of illegal mining and the same had been communicated to the authorities. Yet his vehicle has been detained for more than 45 days in violation of Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
Referring to Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara vs. State of Gujarat, it was insisted that the vehicle be released since no complaint was filed within 45 days of seizure as is mandated by the Rules.
The AGP also confirmed that no criminal prosecution had been initiated as required under Rule 12.
Perusing these contention and Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), the High Court affirmed that such seizure is violative of the Mining Rules. Further, the Nathubhai judgement was quoted in the following manner by Justice Desai to explain the frustration of bank guarantee in the event of seizure"
"The bank guarantee is contemplated to be furnished in three eventualities: (i) for the release of the seized property and (ii) for compounding of the offence and recovery of compounded amount, if it remains unpaid on expiry of the specified period of 30 days; (iii) for recovery of unpaid penalty. Merely because that is so, it cannot be said that the investigator would be absolved from its duty of instituting the case on failure of compounding of the offence."
In light of this direction in the Nathubhai judgement, the High Court set aside the action of the Respondent authorities seizing the vehicle and directed its release.
Case No.: C/SCA/15962/2022
Case Title: AJAYSINH GHANSHYAMSINH JADEJA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 374
