Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Md. Jawed Ahmad, son of Md. Kayum – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s) for quashing the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No.70 of 2023 in connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 registered under Sections 379 , 414, 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , Section 21 of MMDR Act, Rule13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage, Rules, 2017 by which confiscation proceeding has been initiated against the vehicles of the petitioners bearing registration no. JH 20 F 1123 which belongs to petitioner no.1 and JH 02 AU 2506 belongs to the petitioner no.2. Though a further prayer has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to order for quashing the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in M.C.A. No.1545 of 2023 in connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 but the same has not been pressed by the petitioners, accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated 05.10.
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 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....
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.
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 lacks jurisdiction to confiscate vehicles seized under the Mines and Minerals Act without a competent court's order, as per Section 21(4A).
Confiscation of vehicles requires a competent court's order based on a written complaint, not an FIR; statutory procedures must be followed.
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
