Court Rules Complaint Must Be Filed Before Sessions Court Under Gujarat Minerals Rules, 2017; Complaint Filed in Magistrate's Court Declared Non-Est in Law
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Nirzar S. Desai, directed the release of a dumper truck seized in connection with alleged illegal mining activities. The Court ruled that the complaint lodged by the State of Gujarat must be filed before the Court of Sessions as mandated under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2017, and not before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate as was done in this case.
The petitioner, Conmix Infra, challenged the seizure of their Tata Motors dumper truck bearing registration number GJ 16 AW 9963. The vehicle was seized on June 19, 2026, by authorities alleging involvement in illegal mining. The petitioner contended that although the seizure notice was issued, no First Information Report (F.I.R.) was registered within the prescribed time frame as required by Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. Instead, the State filed a complaint on August 3, 2026, before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, which the petitioner argued was without jurisdiction.
Justice Desai, after hearing both sides, relied heavily on a previous ruling in Nathubhai Jinabhai Gamara v. State of Gujarat (Special Civil Application No. 9203 of 2020), where the Court had held that complaints under the said Rules must be filed before the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that filing a complaint in a court lacking jurisdiction renders such complaint non-est in law.
Further, the Court clarified the scope of Rule 12 of the Gujarat Minerals Rules, 2017, which lays down the procedure for seizure and release of property involved in illegal mining. The rule mandates that the authorized officer must file a complaint before the Sessions Court upon completion of preliminary investigation or expiry of 45 days from seizure if compounding is not permissible. The Court pointed out that the bank guarantee demanded for release of the vehicle is only applicable under specific circumstances such as compounding of offense or penalty recovery. In the absence of prosecution or compounding application, continued custody of the vehicle without compliance with Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) is illegal.
In its order, the Court directed the respondent authorities to release the petitioner's vehicle immediately, holding that the complaint filed in the Magistrate's Court was invalid. However, the Court also made it clear that this order was limited to the vehicle's release and did not address the merits of the underlying illegal mining allegations. The State was granted liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the proper forum, i.e., the Sessions Court.
This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards for property seized under the Gujarat Minerals Rules and underscores the necessity of adhering to jurisdictional mandates to ensure lawful prosecution of offenses related to illegal mining.
Bottom Line:
Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2017 - Complaint concerning seized vehicle must be filed before the Court of Sessions as per Rule 12(2)(b)(ii). Filing a complaint in a court lacking jurisdiction renders such a complaint non-est in law.
Statutory provision(s):
Gujarat Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation, and Storage) Rules, 2017 - Rule 12(2)(b)(ii), Rule 12(2)(a), Rule 12(7), Rule 18; Constitution of India - Article 226
Conmix Infra v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972581
