Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J
Rajesh Kumar, S/o. Srimohan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2022-23 by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj by which the truck of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-10GB-2453 has been ordered to be confiscated and to be auctioned in exercise of the power under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on the basis of the written report inter alia submitted by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj alleging therein that the said truck of the petitioner was involved in transportation of minerals illegally on the basis of the forged challans, the minerals along with the said truck has been seized by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj and though show-cause notice was issued by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, to the vehicle’s owner, the same has not been responded to by the petitioner. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj moved an a
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 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 proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner are ultra vires as per Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals Rules, lacking jurisdiction under the Mines Act.
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.
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 lacks jurisdiction to confiscate vehicles seized under the Mines and Minerals Act without a competent court's order, as per Section 21(4A).
Availability of alternative remedy under the statutory framework should be considered before entertaining a writ petition.
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
