ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned GA- 7 for the State and learned AC to Spl.P.P. for the Department of Mines.

2. Petitioner in the present writ application has questioned the seizure of his 14 wheeler truck bearing Reg. No. BR-27G9201 by the Mines Inspector, office of District Mining Officer, Nawada on 22.09.2022. The solitary allegation against the petitioner is that when the truck was intercepted and checked by the Mining Officer, he took a view that the vehicle was overloaded by 100 CFT of sand. Instead of permitted quantity of 700 CFT, allegedly the truck was loaded with 800 CFT.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has basically raised his grievance with respect to the manner in which the vehicle in question has been seized. It is his submission that no doubt a Mining Inspector is authorized to stop and check any career, transport or vessel in terms of Rule 59 of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2019’), the power being drastic in nature must be exercised with due circumspection and care and it should be exercised only in the manner provided by the Rules of 2019. Learned counsel submits that Rule 59 confers power upon certain class of officers mentioned therein to enter, inspect, search and seize any minor mineral, material, conveyance etc. but according to sub-rule (2) of Rule 59, the search and seizure is to be carried out in accordance with the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. It is further submitted that under Rule 60 of the Rules of 2019 any officers mentioned in Rule 59 may stop any carrier, vehicle or vessel carrying minor minerals, to check for verification of the contents and under sub-rule (2) of Rule 60 the officer who forms any prima-facie opinion about the load of the career, vehicle or vessel he may require the driver of the career, vehicle or vessel to take such career, vehicle, vessel to the nearest weighbridge and get the contents weighed at the expense of the driver or the owner of such vehicle/carrier/ vessel. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 60, it is provided that if any person who refuses to obey the lawful command of such Mining Officer, he shall be prosecuted under these Rules.

5. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the specific statements made in the writ application wherein it is stated that on 22.09.2022 when the vehicle in question loaded with 700 CFT of sand and carrying a valid challan reached at Prajatandra Dwar, Nawada the Mining Inspector, District Mining Officer and others carried a search of the vehicle and without following the established procedure of law as contained in Rules of 2019 they seized the vehicle and handed over the truck to the Town Police Station, Nawada.

6. It is stated that the transport challan dated 22.09.2022 contains the name of the customer as Kuldeep Prasad Yadav who had earlier made complaint against the Mining Inspector and District Mining Officer, Nawada for their alleged act of extortion of money and the complaints are said to be pending. The said Kuldeep Prasad Yadav is the uncle of the petitioner and it is his case that the truck in question has been seized by way of a revenge for the complaint lodged by the uncle of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel submits that sub-rule (2) of Rule 59 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 60 have been completely violated in this case. No vehement of truck was taken and by way of a conjecture and surmise only the truck was seized saying that it was overloaded by 100 CFT of sand. It is further submitted that no FIR or any complaint case has been lodged in connection with the alleged seizure but the vehicle in question is lying in the police station for last more than 1 ½ year.

8. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 4. It has been sworn by the Mineral Development Officer, Nawada. It is stated that the vehicle of the petitione