High Court of Gujarat
SORUBHA CHANDUBHA GOHILversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Decided
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- NIRZAR S DESAI
Holding
The vehicle must be released to the petitioner subject to an undertaking and the duty to produce the vehicle when directed, because the complaint was filed beyond the statutory period.
Summary
The petitioner’s TATA Hitachi excavator was seized on 18‑02‑2025 by Gujarat authorities. The required complaint under Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 was filed after the 45‑day period, making the seizure procedurally defective. Relying on a prior coordinate‑bench decision, the court held that the vehicle must be released because the statutory time‑limit was not complied with. The release is conditioned on the petitioner giving an oath not to transfer, alienate or create any charge on the vehicle and to produce it when directed by the authority or court. The court did not examine the merits of the underlying illegal‑mining allegations and left the complaint to be decided on its merits by the lower court.
Issues considered
- Whether a seizure under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is valid when the complaint is filed after the 45‑day period prescribed by Rule 12.
- Whether the seized vehicle must be released to the petitioner and, if so, on what conditions.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- seizure
- illegal mining
- Gujarat Mineral Rules
- complaint filing period
- release of seized property
- undertaking
- special civil application
Judgment
C/SCA/10343/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10343 of 2026
=========================================
SORUBHA CHANDUBHA GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance :
MR JIGAR L PATEL for the Petitioner.
MR NIKUNJ KANARA, AGP for the Respondents.
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 30/07/2026
ORDER
Leave to amend the date of seizure.
1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
serves of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the
parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
vehicle of the petitioner has been seized on 18.02.2025 by the
respondent authorities and the complaint is not preferred by the
authorities within stipulated period, i.e. after 45 days. Learned
counsel submits that since the complaint has not been filed within
the stipulated period, as per the Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2017, the petitioner is entitled to release of his vehicle being TATA
Hitachi Machine Excavator, Model No.EX200LC pending the
Page 1 of 3
C/SCA/10343/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
proceedings. Learned counsel in support of his contentions places
reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
dated 8.8.2024 in Special Civil Application No.8664 of 2024.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents upon instructions received from Ms.Vipul Solanki,
Geologist, Chhotaudepur, submits that the complaint has been filed
after the stipulated period of time under the Rules. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader submits that appropriate order may
be passed in the present case.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is revealed that
the complaint has not been filed within the stipulated period of
time under the Rules, 2017. Various orders have been passed by
this Court, wherein it has been held that it would be obligatory on
the part of the investigator to approach the Court of Sessions with
a written complaint and produce the seized properties before the
Court within the stipulated period under the Rules. In absence of
such 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.
6. In view of the fact that the vehicle in question having
been seized on 18.02.2025 and the complaint has been after 45
days, the vehicle of the petitioner be released on the following
conditions :-
“(i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking on oath before
the Competent Authority that the petitioner shall not transfer,
Page 2 of 3
C/SCA/10343/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/07/2026
alienate, part with the possession of the vehicle being TATA Hitachi
Machine Excavator, Model No.EX200LC or create any charge over
the vehicle in question till the conclusion of the trial.
(ii) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle being TATA
Hitachi Machine Excavator, Model No.EX200LC as and when the
authority or the Court concerned directs him to do so.”
7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the
merits of the case and no observation is made thereon.
8. The concerned Court below shall decide the complaint
on its on merits in accordance with law. It is also made clear that
the respondent authorities are permitted to take appropriate
step(s) in accordance with law against the petitioner under the
Rules, 2017.
9. In view of the aforesaid observations, the present
Special Civil Application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute
accordingly. No order as to costs.
Direct service is permitted.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
SAVARIYA
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: RAJNISH NARENDRA SAVARIYA(HC00179), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 17:28:50
Page 3 of 3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.