ORDER : 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi passed in Crl. R.P. No. 38/2020, thereby confirming the order dated 27.06.2019 passed in P.C. No. 215/2019 passed by II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala and also made the prayer to dismiss the application filed by the respondent under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the vehicle bearing KA-20-D-0230 to pass such other order or orders as this Court deems fit. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 03.05.2019 at Sooda Village, Karkala when Senior Geologist, when checking the vehicle bearing No. KA-20D-0230, he found 8 metric ton building stones was being transported without valid license or permit and the said vehicle was seized and the vehicle seized was subjected to property form and the permission was obtained to retain the same. The complaint filed by the Geologist before II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala which was registered in P.C. No. 215/2019. Thereafter, the investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. The respondent herein had entered appearance and filed application under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. to release the seized vehicle. Learned Magistrate entertained the application and not considered the Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of Karnataka Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1994 (for short ‘the KMMC Rules’). Being aggrieved by the order, the Revision was also filed before the Sessions Judge, who also dismissed the Revision Petition. Hence, the present petition is filed before the Court. 3. The grounds urged in the petition is that the impugned orders passed by both the Courts are against the Rule 43 sub-rules 7 and 8 of the KMMC Rules. It is contended that the sub-rules of Rule 43 of KMMC Rules has been enacted keeping in mind the gravity of the offence and also to secure the ecological balance. The intention of the legislature is clear in this aspect. It is enacted to regulate the offences by imposing the double of the value of the vehicle as Bank Guarantee, which is a different procedure. In view of the order passed by both the Courts the very legislative intent is defeated. Hence, both the orders are liable to the set aside. 4. It is enacted to regulate the offences by imposing the double of the value of the vehicle as Bank Guarantee, which is a different procedure. In view of the order passed by both the Courts the very legislative intent is defeated. Hence, both the orders are liable to the set aside. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition that both the Courts have failed to take note of the Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of KMMC Rules and hence, the order has to be set aside and consequently, the application has to be dismissed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently contend that learned Magistrate while exercising the powers noted that after conducting the seizure, the same was reported. Learned District Judge also while considering the Revision Petition discussed in detail with regard to sub-rules 7 and 8 of Rule 43 of KMMC Rules and given the interpretation that there is no embargo on the part of the Court to pass such an order. 6. Learned counsel would submit that Revisional Court also relied upon the judgment of this Court and has come to the conclusion that imposing conditions of Bank Guarantee is not proper. Hence, the order does not require interference of this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, admittedly both the orders are not in inconsonance with the Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of KMMC Rules. It is also important to note that a special provision is made under the enactment to protect the ecological balance and stringent law is brought to prevent the illegal transportation of mines and minerals. The Court has to look into the very object and legislative wisdom in bringing the special enactment. The Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of KMMC Rules is very clear that no release of the vehicle which shall however not include the minor mineral so seized shall be made unless there is an execution by the owner thereof, of security in the form of a renewable Bank Guarantee, of an amount equal to double the value of such vehicle, before the Competent Court having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. 8. 8. It is also important to note that the vehicle is seized on credible information with regard to the transportation of mines and minerals and law also provides that a private complaint has to be filed before the jurisdictional Courts and under such circumstances the question of registering the case immediately does not arise since there is a bar under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short ‘the MMRD Act’). When the offence is invoked under the MMRD Act and KMMC Rules, 1994, the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate is not correct and also failed to invoke Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of KMMC Rules. In the order, nothing is discussed with regard to the special enactment. No doubt, the Revisional Court in the order discussed in detail with regard to the Rule 43 sub-rules 7 and 8 of KMMC Rules. The Revisional Court also while dismissing the Revision Petition failed to take note of the legislative wisdom in bringing the special enactment. The enactment is specific with regard to protecting the ecological balance and the provision is also made to that effect. It is also important to note that the mines and minerals is transported without the permit or license. When the special enactment is brought particularly, under Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of KMMC Rules, if any order is passed against the statute, it amounts to an stare decisis. Hence, the very contention of the respondent counsel cannot be accepted. Both the Courts have failed to take note of bringing the special enactment to protect the ecology and also to prevent the illegal transportation of mines and minerals. The very interpretation given by the Revisional Court is against the statute. The statute is very clear that while releasing the vehicle a condition has to be imposed to give a renewable Bank Guarantee, double the value of the vehicle. The Courts have failed to consider Rule 43 sub-rule 8 of KMMC Rules in letter and spirit. Hence, orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 9. However taking note of the factual aspects of the case, the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is allowed subject to furnishing of the renewable Bank guarantee double the value of the vehicle involved. Hence, orders impugned are liable to be set aside. 9. However taking note of the factual aspects of the case, the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. is allowed subject to furnishing of the renewable Bank guarantee double the value of the vehicle involved. If the vehicle is already taken to the custody of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 is directed to furnish the renewable Bank Guarantee double the value of the vehicle within four weeks’ from today. If the petitioner fails to furnish the same, the I.O. is directed to take the custody of the vehicle and made the same as PF to the particular Court. 10. With the above observations, the petition is allowed.