The Gujarat High Court has ruled that a complaint concerning the use of a vehicle for illegal mining must be filed before the Sessions Court as mandated under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and cannot be maintained before a Magistrate court. The court made this observation while allowing a petition seeking the release of a seized dumper truck.
The petitioner, CONMIX INFRA, had challenged the seizure of its dumper truck by the respondent authority, alleging that no First Information Report (FIR) was registered beyond the stipulated period, rendering the seizure illegal. The petitioner contended that in the absence of a complaint filed as envisaged under the Rules, the competent authority had no option but to release the seized vehicle without insisting on a bank guarantee.
The State, however, maintained that a complaint had been filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, on 03.08.2026, bearing Criminal Case No. 1447 of 2026. The petitioner objected to this, arguing that such a complaint was not maintainable before a Magistrate and could only be filed before the Court of Sessions under the relevant Rules.
Justice Nirzar S Desai, hearing the matter, referred to an earlier petition from 2020 (Special Civil Application No. 9213 of 2020) where identical facts and legal questions had been considered. In that earlier ruling, the High Court had held that for an offence under the Gujarat Mineral Rules, the complaint must be filed before the Court of Sessions in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court further considered Rule 12 of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and the Notification dated 29th July, 2023, which was produced by the petitioner. Based on these provisions, the court concluded that the Sessions Court is the competent forum for filing such complaints, and the Magistrate court lacks jurisdiction in this regard.
The High Court noted that the Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State was unable to controvert the legal position or the Notification relied upon by the petitioner. The court observed that, considering the facts and the legal precedent set in the 2020 case, the respondent authority was required to approach the Sessions Court under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 2017.
In the absence of such compliance, the court held that the complaint filed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wagra, would be non-est in the eye of law. It reiterated that the complaint is maintainable only before the Court of Sessions under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 2017, as amended in 2019.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and directed the State to release the seized dumper truck. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the underlying issue of illegal mining, and its observations were made solely for the limited purpose of directing the release of the vehicle.
The case is titled CONMIX INFRA v/s THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS, arising out of Special Civil Application No. 11891 of 2026.