Confiscation of vehicles requires a competent court's order based on a written complaint, not an FIR; statutory procedures must be followed.

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 bearing Registration Nos. BR-11GA-2568, BR-38G-9717 and RJ-14GG-2415. He submits that on 31.07.2021, respondent no. 3 has referred this matter to respondent no. 2 for confiscation of the said vehicles of the petitioners under Section 11(v) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 on which respondent no. 2 has initiated Confiscation Case No. 35/2021-22 against these petitioners. He further submits that by the impugned order dated 20.05.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj directed to confiscate the vehicles in question. He submits that the petitioners have already preferred the criminal revision, which is still pending. He submits that the order of confiscation has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which is without jurisdiction. He refers to Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submits that seized vehicles shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the competent Court to take cognizance. He further refers Section 22 of the said Act, 1957 and submits that in view of that, the cognizance can be taken on a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf, which is lacking in the case in hand as the FIR has been registered. He further submits that if the said Act is involved, only Special Court can proceed with the matter. He further refers to Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 and submits that the constitution of Special Courts are provided therein. He submits that Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power. He further submits that in view of the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the same was incorporated in Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 by virtue of Rule-13 thereof and, therefore, an appropriate order can be passed by this Court. He submits that there is no bar in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for releasing the vehicles and the minerals in the Statute, however, in the other Statute i.e. the Indian Forest Act, there is direct bar under Section 52(c) of the said Act. He further submits that Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 speaks of releasing of the seized minerals by way of depositing double amount of the minerals in question. He submits that the petitioners have already deposited the double amount of the minerals in question. He further submits that the petitioners are ready to face the trial. On these grounds, he submits that an appropriate order may kindly be passed for release of the vehicles in question.

5. Ms. Omiya Anusha, learned counsel for the State submits that