Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Lakshman Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Omiya Anusha, learned counsel for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.05.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No. 35/2021-22 by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, whereby, the vehicles bearing registration Nos. BR-11GA-2568, BR-38G-9717 and RJ-14GG-2415 have been directed to be confiscated and the said order was challenged by the petitioners in Revision Case No. 39/2023 before the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, which is still pending.
3. The FIR was lodged on the self statement of the District Mining Officer wherein it was alleged that on 25.09.2021 at about 11:30 hours, he got a secret information that a truck loaded with stone having no documents apprehended on the spot and three trucks were seized and hence, the said FIR was lodged at Muffasil Police Station, District-Sahibganj.
4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of the said revision case, the order of confiscation of the vehicles in question has been passed. He further submits that the petitioners are the real and absolute owner of the truck
Confiscation of vehicles requires a competent court's order based on a written complaint, not an FIR; statutory procedures must be followed.
The central legal point established is that the release of seized vehicles under the MMRD Act 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2004 is not statutorily barred, and release can be allo....
The Deputy Commissioner cannot initiate confiscation proceedings under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals Rules, as it is ultra vires the Mines and Minerals Act, confirming that such authority res....
A valid seizure is a prerequisite for the confiscation of property, and confiscation without an order from a competent court is not in accordance with the law.
The Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to confiscate the truck under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral Rules, which was declared ultra vires, rendering the confiscation order invalid.
The Deputy Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to confiscate vehicles seized under the Mines and Minerals Act without a competent court's order, as per Section 21(4A).
Confiscation proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner are ultra vires as per Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals Rules, lacking jurisdiction under the Mines Act.
The jurisdiction of a criminal court to release a seized vehicle is not barred by pending confiscation proceedings under mining regulations.
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
