The release of a seized vehicle should be done in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J. - Case was taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.

2. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 03.03.2020 (Annexure P.4) passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Indri, District Karnal, whereby an application moved by the petitioner for releasing his tractortrolley, bearing registration No.HR-92-4759 on superdari, was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had been challaned on 17.08.2019 under the State Mining Rules and under Rule 103 read with Rule 104 of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Stocking, Transportation of Mineral and Prevention of Illegal Mining Rules, 2012 (for short 'the 2012 Rules') and his vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-92-4759 was seized by the Mining Authorities. It is further contended that as the Mining Authorities did not initiate any action i.e. filing of a complaint or registration of an FIR within the stipulated period of three months as provided under Rule 106 of the 2012 Rules, the petitioner had moved an application for release of his vehicle before the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Indri. However, vide impugned order, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application holding therein that he does not have any territorial jurisdiction to entertain the application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the absence of any confiscation order being passed under Section 21(4A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (in short, 'the Act'), the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle is not justified. It is further contended that the vehicle could only have been impounded pursuant to a confiscation order passed by a Court competent to take cognizance of the offence and the vehicle could only be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such Court. Reliance was placed upon Rule 106 of the 2012 Rules to contend that the offence(s) was cognizable only on a written complaint and there is a limitation period of three months. The seizure was made on 17.08.2019 and no such complaint had been filed and the vehicle could not be detained without any proceedings as such under the Act. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned action of the Mining Authorities in firstly seizing the vehicle of the petitioner and then (getting) it impounded in the police station, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that the Mining Officer while seizing the vehicle of the petitioner, had totally failed to consider the fact that the petitioner had been carrying sand(earth), which does not fall under the illegal mining and furthermore, it was not being carried out from any river, which would affect ground water level or disturb the water table.

5. In support of the assertions made, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Irfan Vs. State of Haryana and another (CRM-M-19322-2020 decided on 15.10.2020). Learned State counsel, on the other stand, has submitted that the proceedings culminating into the seizure/impounding of the petitioner's vehicle are well justified and the Magistrate has no powers to release the vehicle in the absence of any proceedings before him. Thus, it is argued that there being no proceedings initiated or pending, there arose no occasion for releasing the vehicle on superdari.

6. While emphatically arguing it is submitted that it is only the authorities under the Act, which have the jurisdiction in the matter and the jurisdiction of any other Court is barred, reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Uday Singh,2019 2 RCR(Cri) 640 and Mustafa Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2019 AIR SC 3949 .

7. It is further submitted that similar vehicles seized had been released on account of the deposit of fine, royalty and price of minerals and that the petitioner has no intention to deposit the fine, ro