Back
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Md. Jamil son of Late Md. Hasan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) :
Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for grant of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s) for quashing the order dated 07.02.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No.12 of 2022 whereby and where under the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has confiscated the Hywa vehicle bearing registration No. JH O5AX 4407 which was seized in connection with Noaumundi P.S. Case No.04 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 and 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 as well as Rule 9 and 11 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and for release of the said vehicle.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the owner of the said Hywa vehicle bearing registration No. JH O5AX 4407. The same was seized on 24.01.2022 by the Mines Inspector for allegedly being involved in illegal transportation of sand, stone chips and iron ore without challan. Though in paragraph-4 of the instant
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).
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 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....
Confiscation of vehicles requires a competent court's order based on a written complaint, not an FIR; statutory procedures must be followed.
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.
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.
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
