Availability of alternative remedy under the statutory framework should be considered before entertaining a writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 – the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro in Confiscation Case No. 07/2019-20, whereby the respondent no. 3 has directed the respondent no. 4 – the District Mining Officer-cum-Confiscation Officer, Bokaro to confiscate altogether 15 vehicles each loaded with 100 cft sand.

2. Mr. Rohan Kashyap, AC to GP-II appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of preferring revision under rule 15 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2017”) against the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 passed by the respondent no. 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite there being provision of revision under rule 15 of the Rules, 2017, this Court may entertain the present writ petition directly as the respondent no. 3 vide impugned order has directed for confiscation of altogether 15 vehicles each loaded with 100 cft sand in contravention of law.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on order dated 27.09.2021 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(Cr.) No. 77 of 2021.

5. On perusal of the said order, it does not appear that the issue with regard to maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative recourse to the said petitioner under rule 15 of the Rules, 2017 was either raised or decided. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench will not help the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the present writ petition should be entertained without relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of preferring revision under rule 15 of the Rules, 2017.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rakesh @ Tattu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.” reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1883.

7. The issue involved in the said case was as to whether the appellant’s offer for compounding the offence in respect of violation of Section 26(1)(g) and 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was rightly declined by the competent authority. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that the authority did not exercise its discretion in judicious manner as also the matter was not considered in proper perspective and thus failed to give full effect to the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which speaks of the power to compound offences by a forest officer empowered by the State Government through notification in the official Gazette. Hence, the issue of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of statutory recourse of preferring revision was also not involved in the said case.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of challenging the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 by preferring a revision under rule 15 of the Rules, 2017, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioners are, however, at liberty to take statutory recourse by preferring a revision under rule 15 of the Rules, 2017 against the impugned order.