Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary
Sanjay Kumar Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology – Respondent
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 Sec
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.
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.
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
