ARVINDBHAI DHIRUBHAI DUMANIYAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT
- Disposal
- 58-RULE ISSUED & RULE ABSOLUTE/ALLOWED @FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
In the absence of a complaint filed within the period prescribed by the Gujarat Mineral Rules, 2017, the seized vehicle must be released to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner’s vehicle was seized on 03‑12‑2025 by authorities under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, but no formal complaint was filed within the period prescribed by the Rules. The petitioner filed a special civil application seeking release of the vehicle, relying on earlier decisions of this Court. The respondents admitted that no complaint had been lodged. The Court observed that the Rules require the investigator to file a written complaint and produce the seized property before the Sessions Court within the stipulated time; failure to do so defeats the purpose of seizure. Consequently, the Court ordered the immediate release of the vehicle, noting that it had not examined the merits of the underlying case and that the order does not preclude future legal action. The application was disposed of and the rule made absolute.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s vehicle can be continued in the absence of a complaint filed under the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the seized vehicle pending any further proceedings.
Subjects
Judgment
C/SCA/3253/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3253 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ARVINDBHAI DHIRUBHAI DUMANIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NAMRATA HARISHBHAI CHAUHAN(6534) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR VAIBHAV SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 16/03/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Vaibhav Sharma waives service of Rule on behalf of
the respondents.
2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties,
the matter is taken up for #nal hearing and disposal.
3. Ms. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the vehicle of the petitioner was seized on 03.12.2025 by
the respondent authorities and till date, no complaint has been
#led by the respondents. She submits that since the complaint
Page 1 of 3
C/SCA/3253/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
has not been #led as per provisions of the Gujarat Mineral
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2017, the petitioner is entitled to release of his vehicle, bearing
registration No.GJ-13-AD-2720 and Chassis No.
1PY5310EESL072124 pending the proceedings. Learned counsel
in support of her contentions has placed reliance on the
decisions passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.
9203 of 2020 dated 26.08.2020 and Letters Patent Appeal No.
717 of 2020 dated 19.04.2021.
4. Mr. Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents submits that no complaint has
been #led yet and that therefore, appropriate order may be
passed in the present case.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is revealed that no
complaint has been #led 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 enunciation of law and in absence of any
complaint #led, it would not be within the authority of the
respondent authority to continue seizure of the vehicle and
Page 2 of 3
C/SCA/3253/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/03/2026
therefore, the authority concerned is directed to forthwith
release the vehicle of the petitioner. It is clari#ed that the
present writ petition has been entertained only for the limited
purpose of releasing the vehicle of the petitioner. It will be open
to the petitioner to avail of the remedy available in law. It is also
clari#ed that this order shall not preclude the o<cers to initiate
any proceedings, in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits
of the case and no observation is made thereon.
8. 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.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
ANUSRI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: ANUSRI VASU(HC02352), ENGLISH STENO GRADE-II\, at High Court of Gujarat on 18/03/2026 14:21:01
Page 3 of 3
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.