SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Pat) 177

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.
Manoj Ray @ Manoj Kumar Ray, S/o Kamata Ray - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.300 of 2025
Decided On : 20-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Kameshwar Kumar, GP-17, Mr. Utsav Anand, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR JHA, J.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking following reliefs :

“(i) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for issuance of direction to the respondent authorities to release the Vehicle i.e. a Diesel TATA Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing registration number as UP51AT0925 and the Chassis No.- MAT466388F5J12443 in favour of petitioner, which is seized by Respondent no.-4.

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to the concerned respondent to cancel/quash the proceedings in Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.-127/2024 dated 20.11.2024 lodged under Sections 303 (2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of MMDR Act and Section 56(2) of The Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, initiated against the petitioner seizing the vehicle bearing registration number as UP51AT0925 and the Chassis No.- MAT466388F5J12443 as per Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Amendment Rules, 2021.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for issuance of direction to the concerned respondents to examine in what circumstances the F.I.R. has been lodged as Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.- 127/2024 dated 20.11.2024 lodged under Sections 303 (2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of MMDR Act and Section 56(2) of The Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules.

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s) for issuance of direction to the concerned respondents to examine in what circumstances the Diesel TATA Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing registration number as registration number as UP51AT0925 and the Chassis No.- MAT466388F5J12443 of the petitioner has been seized.

(iii) Any other relief(s) for which the petitioner is found entitled to”.

2. Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is stated to be the owner of a Diesel TATA Truck (Goods Carrier) bearing Registration No. UP-51AT-0925, Chassis No. MAT466388F5J12443. The petitioner is engaged in transportation business. The petitioner claims that he possessed a prepaid pass/challan issued by the Government of Bihar, explicitly authorizing the transportation of yellow sand within the specified time framed from 01.11.2024 at 06:38:21 P.M till 02.11.2024 at 06:38:21 P.M.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that while the driver of the petitioner had been lawfully carrying out his duty of transporting yellow sand well within permitted limit, mining official stopped him on 02.11.2024 and proceeded to seize the vehicle. Subsequently, after a delay of eighteen days, Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 127/2024 dated 20.11.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 303 (2) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Section 27 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act') and Section 56 (2) of Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to '2019 Rules'), has been lodged against the owner of the vehicle and its driver.

4. From the FIR, it appears the vehicle was seized due to overloading. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 127/2024 and for release of his vehicle, in question as well as other consequential reliefs.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 4 has arbitrarily seized the vehicle of the petitioner, who is the bonafide owner of the vehicle in question and is engaged in business of transportation. For carrying sand on the said vehicle, the petitioner has got a valid challan and the driver was carrying the same. The validity period commenced at 06:38:21 P.M.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top