ORDER : HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J. [1.0] RULE. Learned APP waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat. [2.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “ BNSS ”), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(B)THIS HON’BLE COURT WOULD BE PLEASED TO quashed and set aside the order passed by the 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Patan in Criminal Misc. Application No.368 of 2025 dated 19.06.2024 and thereby, release the vehicles and equipments of the petitioner, in the interest of justice; (C) THIS HON’BLE COURT WOULD BE PLEASED TO grant interim custody of the following vehicles and equipments on such conditions as it may deem fit to this Hon’ble Court. (1) Transit Mixer of Eicher Company bearing Registration No.GJ-18-BV-2667; (2) Transit Mixer of Eicher Company bearing Registration No.GJ-18-BV-4187; (3) Transit Mixer of Eicher Company bearing Registration No.GJ-18-BV- 2795; (4) Curb Cutting Machine; (5) Bolero Camper of Mahindra Company bearing Registration No.GJ-18-BV- 1428; (6) Ready Mix Concrete Plant of Wagadh Infra Project Private Limited and (7) Sudhir Power Limited Company Diesel Generator Modal No.SLP200 (Sr. No.2304Q532)” [3.0] The brief facts giving rise to present petition are as follows: [3.1] The petitioner – M/s. Wagad Infra Project Limited is formed and registered under companies Act 1932 on 25.10.1999 with the Registrar of Companies, Banswara (Reg. No.: 03/26/99). The petitioner has implemented number of road and infrastructure projects throughout the country including numerous projects National Highway Authority of India. The Petitioner Company is owner of the muddamal vehicles and equipments, which are used for construction of roadways. [3.2] As the petitioner – company was not willing to deposit the said amount or compound the said offence, respondent No.2 – Authorized Officer moved the learned Designated Court under Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, 2017 for confiscation of the vehicle on 04.12.2024 and application under Section 497 of the BNSS came to be filed for release of vehicles but as the petitioner was neither ready and willing to compound the offence nor to deposit amount equivalent to 1.5 times of the valuation of muddamal vehicles and machineries mentioned in the seizure Form No.J , said application came to be turned and hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. [3.3] The petitioner participated in the tender process for construction of Four Lane Divided Carriageway with Paved Shoulder from Patan (Near Rajpur) to Gojariya having a length of 76.940 km with the National Highway Authority of India ("NHAI" for short) and the petitioner was successful bidder in the same. Furthermore, on 28.03.2022, Letter of Award for the said project was issued to the petitioner. That, on 02.11.2022, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India through NHAI for, the aforementioned project of construction of highway road. [3.4] After the aforesaid agreement dated 02.11.2022 was executed by the petitioner on 07.06.2023, the petitioner applied/obtained an online registration by making an Application in Form B as per Rule 4(3) and (7) of the Gujarat Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 ("Rules of 2017" for short) for storage of the said minerals in land Survey No. 83 of village Jasalpur, Taluka Chansma, District Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the said lands"). Rule 4(7) of the Rules provides from automatic approval upon registration for each construction project with respect to which more than one hundred metric tonnes of mineral specified in Part A of the Schedule III of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 (for short "Concession Rules"). [3.5] That, on the basis of a telephonic complaint against the petitioner, on 22.10.2024, inspection was conducted by the Authorized Officer of the Mining Department of the said lands for storage of raw material for construction of road. Moreover, as part of surprise checking and proceedings, the respondent No.2 seized the aforesaid vehicles and equipment in idle and empty condition. [3.6] The respondent No.2 issued seizure memo as per Form-J. As per the Form-J, the vehicles and equipment were empty and in idle condition and same is kept in the premises of petitioner while handing over custody to one Dineshbhai Amthabhai Desai by the Royalty Inspector -Respondent No.2. That, on 07.11.2024, the respondent No. 2 issued show cause notice to imposed penalty as per Rule 21 and alternatively to compound the offence as per Schedule III of Rule 22 of Rule. The representative of the petitioner remained present and filed reply dated 13.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 to the show cause notice. Ultimately, on 03.12.2024, an order to deposit an amount of Rs.42,43,689/- is passed under Rule 21(3) of the Rules. The representative of the petitioner remained present and filed reply dated 13.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 to the show cause notice. Ultimately, on 03.12.2024, an order to deposit an amount of Rs.42,43,689/- is passed under Rule 21(3) of the Rules. Against the said order the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.2078 of 2025 before this Court wherein notice has been issued to the respondents and matter is sub-judice for further adjudication. [3.7] That, on 04.12.2024, the respondent No. 2 – Mine Supervisor has filed complaint for the offence under sections 4 and 22 of Mines and Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and as per Rules 3 and 12 of Rules, 2017 wherein, the vehicles and equipments along with the mineral are produced as a Muddamal. The petitioner is the owner of the said vehicles and equipments. [3.8] The petitioner has filed an application for releasing the muddamal before the Learned Sessions Court being Criminal Misc. Application No.64 of 2025 which came to be rejected by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patan. Again for the same purpose, on 28.04.2025 the petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Application No.368 of 2025 before the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Patan requesting to release the Muddamal vehicles and equipments which also came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Patan on the ground that the penalty order which is passed by the Geologist Patan is assailed by way of Special Civil Application No.2078 of 2025 which is pending before this Court and therefore, did not interfere with the said order till the SCA No.2078/2025 is pending before this Court. [3.9] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition through its authorized power of attorney holder for release of vehicles and equipments. [4.0] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner company has not committed any illegality, rather petitioner Company is involved in undertaking projects of national importance i.e. construction of highways. Moreover, it is not even the case of the Respondent No.2 – Mine Supervisor that the petitioner has committed any illegal mining of any mines and mineral. Therefore, prima facie the proceedings initiated and seizure of vehicle by respondents are not in consonance with the Rules. Moreover, it is not even the case of the Respondent No.2 – Mine Supervisor that the petitioner has committed any illegal mining of any mines and mineral. Therefore, prima facie the proceedings initiated and seizure of vehicle by respondents are not in consonance with the Rules. Further, all the vehicles and the equipment are used in the construction of the roadways as per the work order and therefore, no offence as alleged in the complaint is even prima facie made out against the petitioner more particularly with respect to the seized vehicle and equipment. It is an admitted fact even by the respondent No.2 that the muddamal vehicles and equipment were not involved in any illegal activity, rather same were being used for construction of roadways as per the work order issued by the NHAI. In view of the same and since the vehicles and equipment are not at all involved and/or are part of in the alleged offence, the same are required to be released. [4.1] Further, in view of the statutory provisions of law, more particularly, sub-rules 3 to 8 of Rule 4, it is evident and apparent that there is no illegal storage of mining material by the petitioner. Sub-Rule 7 of Rule 4 provides from end-user engaged in construction business to obtain an online registration by making an application in Form B. Further, the Geologist Patan has inspected the place where mineral is stored by the petitioner for the construction work of national highway wherein, the seized vehicles and equipments are in stationary condition though same are seized and therefore also, the seizure of the vehicles and equipments by the mines supervisor is grossly illegal, unconstitutional and against the statutory provisions of law and more particularly the mining rules. Hence also, the vehicles and equipment are required to be released. [4.2] Further, it is submitted that the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patan rejected the Criminal Misc. Hence also, the vehicles and equipment are required to be released. [4.2] Further, it is submitted that the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patan rejected the Criminal Misc. Application No.64 of 2025 which is rejected by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Patan on the ground that along with the application authorized letter or power of attorney is not submitted and therefore, the petitioner filed fresh application along with the power of attorney but same also came to be rejected on the ground that the mineral recovery order which is passed by the Geologist Patan is subject matter of SCA No.2708 of 2025 and therefore, Muddamal cannot be released and thus, the learned Judge has not examined and decided the application on merits and both time rejected on technical ground without considering Rule 12 of Rules, 2017. [4.3] Since the seized vehicles and equipments have not committed any contravention of rule 12 of Rules, 2017, the petitioner has not filed any application for compounding the offence and therefore, as per Rule 12(2)(b)(ii) of Rules, 2017, the complaint before the Court of Sessions is filed and same is registered as Sessions Case No.100 of 2024 and therefore, the application filed for interim custody ought to have been allowed in view of Rule 12 as the learned Sessions Court has jurisdiction to release the Muddamal vehicles and equipments during the pendency of the trial though same is rejected. [4.4] The dispute is that storage of mineral is illegal and said mineral is seized by the complainant and at this stage, petitioner is not seeking release of Muddamal mineral. Therefore, he has requested for interim custody of muddamal vehicles and equipments. In support of his submissions, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bishwajit Dey vs. State of Assam reported in (2025) 3 SCC 241 ; Vaghabhai Bhojabhai Khatana vs. The State of Gujarat & Anr. rendered in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.5686/2024 as well as decisions of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Bhimabhai Algotar vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. rendered in Special Criminal Application No.1726 of 2024 and allied matters and in the case of Jhala Ghanshyamsingh Mobatsingh vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.9745 of 2017. rendered in Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.5686/2024 as well as decisions of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Bhimabhai Algotar vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. rendered in Special Criminal Application No.1726 of 2024 and allied matters and in the case of Jhala Ghanshyamsingh Mobatsingh vs. State of Gujarat rendered in Special Criminal Application No.9745 of 2017. [5.0] Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner is involved in illegal activity and under one or the other pretext continued with such illegal activities under the MMRD Act and in this regard, without any pass, permit or license, petitioner has been indulging in illegal storage of minerals and during the raid, theft of minerals was recovered for which notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.42,43,689/- was also issued but the petitioner is neither ready and willing to deposit the said amount of penalty nor is ready for compounding of the offence. The said amount does not include valuation of minerals, as per seizure order in Form-J which runs in crores of rupees. Hence, has strongly objected for the release of muddamal vehicles. Further, even the confiscation proceedings have been initiated and therefore also, has requested not to exercise the discretion in favor of the petitioner as the possibility of petitioner indulging in such illegal activities cannot be ruled out if the muddamal vehicles and equipments are released. In view of the above, he has requested to dismiss the present petitions. [6.0] I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned advocates for respective parties. [7.0] It is the case of the prosecution that the present petitioner in the name and style of Wagad Infra Project Pvt. Ltd. is running his business and used the vehicles to transport minerals to his RMC plant which is situated at village Jasalpur without registration wherein during the inquiry, the investigating team of Mines and Minerals Department visited the plant and asked the petitioner to produce the pass permit and registration details for storage of minerals and as the petitioner company failed to produce such evidence, the machineries were seized under Rules 12 and 13 of the Rules, 2017 and seizure Memo Form No.J came to be issued. Thereafter, for violation of Rules 3, 5 and 21 of the Rules, 2017, on 07.11.2024, show-cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.42,43,689/-. [7.1] One more aspect which is required to be considered is that, though order dated 07.11.2024 is an appealable order, petitioner has not filed any statutory appeal but by way of filing Special Civil Application No.2708/2025 approached this Court, which is pending and no stay is granted. During the pendency of said proceedings, twice approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge to release muddamal. As the petitioner is neither ready to compound the offence nor is ready and willing to deposit the amount towards seized vehicles and machineries, the application was dismissed. Even, during the course of hearing also, while this Court put a pertinent query to the learned advocate for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the said compounding amount or amount equal to 1.5 times of muddamal vehicles and machineries subject to outcome of the pending proceedings, learned advocate for the petitioner upon instructions submitted that the petitioner is not ready and willing to deposit such amount. [7.2] In view of above peculiar facts of the case, once confiscation proceedings are going on, question does not arise to release the muddamal vehicles and machineries. If the vehicles are released then entire confiscation proceedings initiated by the appropriate authority itself would become infructuous. Herein, no any offence is registered under the IPC or BNS and hence, question does not arise to pass any order exercising the power under section 497 of the BNSS / section 451 of the CrPC. [7.3] It is true that in connection with the offence registered under the IPC alongwith the MMRD Act , there is no bar to exercise jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CrPC in view of the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 . [7.4] However, herein, in the case on hand, special legislation under the MMRD Act is invoked and confiscation proceedings are already initiated as seizure is permissible under the Rules, 2017 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 2017 provides for seizure of the property liable to be confiscated. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 . [7.4] However, herein, in the case on hand, special legislation under the MMRD Act is invoked and confiscation proceedings are already initiated as seizure is permissible under the Rules, 2017 and Rule 12 of the Rules, 2017 provides for seizure of the property liable to be confiscated. Herein, confiscation proceeding is underway and separate proceeding being SCA No.2708/2025 is pending before this Court. If no any stay or interim relief is granted in the said matter, to thwart the confiscation proceeding, application being Criminal Misc. Application No.64/2025 under Section 4 97 of the BNSS / Section 4 51 of the CrPC came to be filed to release the muddamal. As discussed herein above, proceeding initiated under the Special Act and not under the IPC. Though there is no bar to exercise the discretion, learned Sessions judge has twice given an ample opportunity to the petitioner as earlier application being CR.MA No.64/2025 came to be dismissed, thereafter another application being CR.MA No.368/2025 was filed wherein opportunity was given to the petitioner to furnish or provide Bank Guarantee equivalent to the amount of penalty though the petitioner has refused to do so. [8.0] Further, the authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner are not helpful to the petitioner considering the peculiar facts of the case on hand on two counts. Once proceeding under the MMRD Act for confiscation is going on and not under the IPC, any proceedings are initiated or confiscation proceedings were not initiated which was pending or contemplated beyond statutory period or time limit, which is under challenge and as per the law laid down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Jhala Ghanshyamsingh Mobatsingh (Supra) more particularly in paragraph 7, it is pertinent to note that learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on said authority wherein the Court has specificially observed that while releasing the vehicle under the MMRD Act , the interim release of the vehicle should be on strict condition of furnishing the Bank Guarantee to the tune of 1.5 times of the value of muddamal. Further, it is needless to say that each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. Further, it is needless to say that each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect. [8.1] So far as another authority relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner is concerned, in the said pronouncement, it has been clearly stated that a person seeking release of muddamal shall have to offer 1.5 times Bank Guarantee though he is not ready and willing to follow the same and therefore also, the said authority is more helpful to the respondent – State than the present petitioner. In this regard reference is required to be made to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State Of A.P. reported in AIR 2004 SC 132 as well as in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 4 SCC 649 . Hence, the authorities relied on by the learned advocate for the petitioner would not avail any assistance to the petitioner. [9.0] Further, the object of MMRD Act is very clear. Section 13 of the MMRD Act and Rule 12 of the Rules, 2017 provides for release of vehicle seized under the provisions of the MMRD Act . Considering the said provisions also, as confiscation proceedings being initiated under the special Act and as section 5 of the CrPC states that, nothing contained in the Code shall, in absence of specific provision to the contrary, affect any special law or local law for the time being in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law for the time being in force. Thus, considering section 5 of the CrPC, the MMRD Act and Rules, 2017 framed thereunder are special law / enactment and hence, petitioners are not entitled to claim release of muddamal vehicles under Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC as of right as powers are also discretionary one. As stated earlier, the very purpose of confiscation is to ensure that the vehicles which are frequently put to use in illegal activity of extracting and transporting minerals are kept out of circulation. As stated earlier, the very purpose of confiscation is to ensure that the vehicles which are frequently put to use in illegal activity of extracting and transporting minerals are kept out of circulation. In such circumstances, if vehicles are released then it would frustrate the very object of the intention of the legislature. As the confiscation proceedings being initiated, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order and question to exercise discretionary powers under Section 451 of the CrPC / section 497 of the BNSS does not arise in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733 . [9.1] Considering the fact that confiscation proceedings being initiated, the initiation of confiscation proceeding is independent one as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Gopal Sarkar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 495 considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Forest Officer vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao reported in (1985) 4 SCC 537. Further, validity of confiscation of property proceedings at pre-trial stage is also not a punishment in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar reported in (2016) 3 SCC 183 Section 23-C of the MMRD Act specifically empowers the State Government to make rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation and storage of minerals. All natural resources vest with State as per Entry No.23 of State List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, 1949 and the State is the owner of the minerals. The object of confiscation is to stop violators from repeating such illegal activity by imposing high penalty which ultimately leads to confiscation proceedings which is only for the purpose to stop such menace of illegal mining and transportation of minerals. [9.2] Even as per the principle of law and as per the administrative law also, if statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in the said manner and in no other manner. [9.2] Even as per the principle of law and as per the administrative law also, if statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in the said manner and in no other manner. Expressio uninus est exclusio alterius which means, if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular way, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner. Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud means an authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by “shift or conveience” and what cannot be done directly is not permissible to be done obliquely. [10.0] Herein, the petitioner is not ready and willing to compound the offence before the competent authority as same is also challenged. The petitioner has neither paid or is ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs.42,49,689/- as stated in the notice since 07.11.2024 nor he is ready and willing to compound the offence or to deposit the aforesaid amount subject to final outcome of the proceeding and without depositing a single penny he is interested to get release the muddamal vehicles and equipments which would definitely frustrate the object of the MMRD Act . When confiscation proceeding has been initiated then the vehicle shall be released only on the payment of penalty and the compounding fee. Herein, the petitioner is not ready and willing to deposit any amount. Though vehicles / machines / equipments are released then it would thwart the proceedings of confiscation and other proceedings initiated as authorized by the MMRD Act . [10.1] It is pertinent to note that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India confers fundamental right on every citizen to practice any profession or carry any occupation, trade or business subject to reasonable restriction. Citizens cannot carry on business activity which is against the law or society or the general public. [10.1] It is pertinent to note that Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India confers fundamental right on every citizen to practice any profession or carry any occupation, trade or business subject to reasonable restriction. Citizens cannot carry on business activity which is against the law or society or the general public. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution – directive principle of the State Policy also recognized the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers, wildlife and to have compassion for all living creatures and judiciary plays important role in upholding the ecological integrity and ensuring that development does not come at the expense of environmental degradation and Article 48(A), a directive principle of State Policy also permits the improvement of environment and to protect the natural environment or improve the environment and ecological condition is integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution as environment protection is a part of our culture, values and tradition. Hence, attitude on the part of the petitioner to carry trade and profession at the cost of environment and the society is also not permissible. Earth is our paradise and it is our duty to protect our paradise. The Constitution of India empowers the frame work of protection and preservation of nature without which life cannot be enjoyed. [10.2] It is a legal principle that a special law prevails over a general law is well-established in legal interpretation, summarized by the Latin Maxim generalia specialibus non derogant (general provisions do not derogate from special provisions). When a specific or special statute conflicts with a general one covering the same subject, the provisions of the special law will be applied to resolve the conflict and guide legal proceedings. Hence, considering the purpose of enactment of the MMRD Act and special legislation, argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner is not acceptable. Not only that, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting application being CR.MA No.368/2025, which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even, the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are very much limited. Not only that, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting application being CR.MA No.368/2025, which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even, the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are very much limited. Herein, there is no any ground found to interfere with the order passed by the learned Sessions Court and it has not committed any error apparent on the face of the record or nothing emerges from the reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge any palpable, manifest or substantial error in interpretation of law is noticed in the order. [11.0] In wake of aforesaid discussion and in peculiar facts of the case and in absence of readiness and willingness of the petitioner to tender Bank Guarantee equivalent to 1.5 times of the valuation of muddamal vehicles / equipments or to deposit any amount pursuant to the notice / order dated 03.12.2024 and during the pendency of Special Civil Application No.2078/2025, application is filed with a view to thwart the confiscation proceedings initiated by the authority and hence, present petition being devoid of any merits, stands dismissed. Rule is hereby discharged. It is made clear that, the confiscation proceedings are to be decided by the concerned Authority / Court independently on it’s own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.