The detention of seized vehicles must adhere to procedural due process; prolonged retention without recourse violates rights to property and livelihood, justifying release.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for release of a Tata Signa (Hyva Truck) bearing Registration No.OD05BY3505, which, according to the petitioner, has been illegally seized and detained by the Tahasildar, Niali, without authority of law and in disregard of due process, rendering the said action unsustainable in law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The present writ petition arises out of the seizure and detention of a Tata Signa (Hyva Truck) bearing Registration No. OD05BY3505, alleged to have been involved in the transportation of sand from the Kulashree area under Niali Tahasil in Cuttack district. The vehicle is registered in the name of a partnership firm, R.K. Rout & Partners, which is engaged in commercial transportation activities. The incident in question took place on 10.06.2025, when a joint enforcement team comprising officials of the Niali Tahasil and personnel of the Niali Police Station conducted a raid in the Kulashree area to check unauthorized transportation of minor minerals.

(ii) During the said operation, two Hyva trucks, including the vehicle in question, were found carrying sand without production of valid transit permits i.e. Y-Forms. Both vehicles were seized on the spot by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali Police Station, in the presence of witnesses, and the seizure was recorded vide General Diary Entry No. 22 dated 10.06.2025. The vehicles were thereafter placed under the custody of Niali Police Station for safe keeping. A report of the seizure was submitted on the same day to the Mining Officer-cum-Competent Authority, Minor Minerals, Cuttack, through Daily Report No. 1862/PS dated 10.06.2025.

(iii) Subsequent to the seizure, the Mining Officer sought verification of ownership from the RTO, Cuttack, and initiated steps for assessment of penalty in accordance with Rule 51(1)(xi) of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023. The ownership details of the vehicle were later confirmed, and the vehicle continued to remain in custody pending further action.

(iv) Meanwhile, the registered owner of the vehicle approached various authorities seeking its release, alleging that the seizure had been made without due authority or proper notice. The owner submitted representations before the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur, requesting release of the vehicle and clarification of the grounds for its detention. It is stated that no formal communication or seizure list was served upon the owner. The vehicle, being stationary in open conditions for an extended period, reportedly suffered physical deterioration due to weather exposure.

(v) The records indicate that the vehicle had been financed through a loan obtained from Bandhan Bank, Cuttack Branch, and that monthly installments continued to accrue during the period of seizure. The owner, claiming financial distress on account of the vehicle’s non- operation, eventually invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking release of the vehicle and a declaration that the seizure was without sanction of law.

(vi) The essential facts for adjudication, therefore, concern the authority under which the seizure was made, the compliance or otherwise with the procedure prescribed under the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, and whether the detention of the vehicle stands justified within the framework of statutory and constitutional protections.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the