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 rests with the Judicial Magistrate.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2023 passed by the respondent no. 3 being the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Confiscation Case no. 29 of 2023 by which, by which the respondent no. 3 has confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. JH01CJ-7129 and has also directed the District Mining Officer, Latehar to initiate auction of confiscated vehicle and minerals after fixing the reserve price in exercise of the power under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary & Ors. passed in WP(C) no. 6788 of 2023 dated 22.07.2024 and allied case passed by a Division Bench of this Court, para 33 under the heading ‘Summarised Conclusion’, of which reads as under :-

(i) The phrase “court taking cognizance” is the Special Court constituted in terms of Section 30 -B of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act and where there is no such Special Court constituted, it will be the Judicial Magistrate First Class.

(ii) It is only the “court taking cognizance”, who is the “confiscating authority” under the Act and the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner of each District has got no power to initiate and decide a confiscation proceeding, as the same is in conflict with the parent Act, thus, Rule 11(V) is ultra vires to the parent Act.

submits that in that case, the Division Bench of this court has held that Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, hence, it is submitted that since impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in exercise of the power under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, which is no more a good law, having been declared as ultra vires to the parent Act, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this writ petition, be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand fairly submits that the Division Bench of this court has held that Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the parent act being Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.

5. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the said vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the police in connection with Balumath P.S. case no. 219 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 379 / 411/ 414/ 34 of the IPC and Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act as well as Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is the registered owner of the said vehicle and the Confiscation Case no. 29 of 2023 was initiated against the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, in exercise of the power under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 and ultimately, the impugned order has been passed in exercise of the power vested upon the respondent no. 3- Deputy Commissioner, Latehar under the said Rule as the undisputed fact remains that