Back
SANDEEP KUMAR
Naveen Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Sandeep Kumar, J.—
Ref:- I.A. No. 01 of 2025
This Interlocutory Application has been filed for amending the relief sought in paragraph no.1 of the writ application by adding the following reliefs:—
“(v) To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no 2016/M, Patna dated 16.09.2025 issued under the signature of Mining Development Officer, Patna (Respondent No.5), whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.5 has asked the petitioner to deposil Rs.1,11,688/- (Rupees One Lac Eleven Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-Eight) as penalty and value of the mineral.
(vi) To issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus for provisional release of the tractor of the petitioner along with its trailer loaded with sand, during pendency of the writ application.”
2. For the reasons mentioned in the interlocutory application, I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands allowed. The prayer sought by filing this interlocutory application shall be treated to be a part of the main writ petition.
Ref:- C.W.J.C. No . 11832 of 2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned Spl.P.P. for the Mines Departmen
Discretion in enforcement procedures allows alternative methods of measurement under exigent circumstances, affirming the legality of seizure and penalty despite procedural lapses.
The detention of seized vehicles must adhere to procedural due process; prolonged retention without recourse violates rights to property and livelihood, justifying release.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
