Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 977
PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, J
Md. Saidur @ Saidur – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Secretary Department of Mines Government of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8293 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Virendra Kuar
For the Respondents: Mr. Government Pleader (18)
Decisions affecting rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice including providing an opportunity to be heard and documenting reasons.
Headnote:(A) No specific statute cited. The rules of natural justice, particularly the doctrine of audi alteram partem, require that a person whose rights are affected must be granted an opportunity to be heard, and reasons for decisions must be provided to prevent arbitrariness. (Paras 12-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered owner of a J.C.B., had his vehicle seized by the District Mining Officer while lifting soil from land without proper documents. A penalty was imposed without giving the petitioner a chance to be heard, leading to claims of illegality in the seizure and the penalty.
Findings of Court:
The order imposing penalty was quashed due to violation of principles of natural justice, requiring fresh consideration after serving a notice to the petitioner. The vehicle was ordered to be released under conditions to ensure compliance going forward. (Paras 15-17)
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was properly heard before the imposition of a penalty and seizure of his vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: An adverse order requiring a party to adhere to potentially punitive measures without due notice or an opportunity to present their case is a violation of natural justice. The necessity for reasoned decisions was emphasized as a safeguard against arbitrary power.
Result: The writ petition is allowed and the penalty order is quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure of vehicle without proper documentation. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. deterioration of vehicle value due to unjustified seizure. (Para 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. requirements and implications of natural justice. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. court's order against arbitrary penalties. (Para 15) |
| 5. release of vehicle with conditions. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-11-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the State and the learned Spl. P.P. for the Mines Department.
2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/s, order/s, or direction/s to the respondents for release of the J.C.B bearing Registration No. BR-11G-D 2438, Chassis No. RAJ3DXXTJ02833593, Engine No. H00259828 in favour of the petitioner, as the same has been seized by the order of the respondents authority i.e., the District Mining Officer, Purnea.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered owner of the J.C.B bearing registration no. BR- 11-GD 2438 and its Chassis No. RAJ3DXXTJ02833593 and Engine No. H00259828 and the same was being used by the petitioner for commercial activities. On 24.04.2025, the vehicle of the petitioner was being used for lifting the soil/earth from the raiyati land of one Sk. Basir Ahmad under Khata No. 112, Khesra No. 242 Area 1.95 Acre, village Barsauni, P.S. Dagarua, District Purnea. On the same day, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the Dagarua police on the order of Mining Officer, Purnea.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30.04.2025, a challan was issued by the Transport Department under the signature of Dealing Assistant, Purnea by which a penalty amount of Rs. 1,79,849/- (One Lac Seventy- Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty-Nine only) was imposed on the petitioner for the reasons that the vehicle of the petitioner was being utilized without any documents and the petitioner has already deposited the said amount i.e., Rs. 149369 (one lac forty-nine thousand three hundred and sixty-nine only) + Rs. 30,480 (thirty thousand four hundred eighty only).
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the vehicle of the petitioner is lying in open sky in the Campus of Dagarua Police Station, District Purnea and because of the same fact the value of the vehicle is deteriorating by each passing day and because of which the government is also facing revenue loss.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Dagarua police wrote a letter vide Gyapank No. 1578 dated 25.04.2025 to the District Mining Officer, Purnea for seeking direction to release the vehicle of the petitioner after due verification but in spite of seeking the aforesaid direction by the police officer, the Mining Officer has failed to give directions to release the vehicle of the petitioner and due to the inaction of the respondent no. 2, the value of the vehicle is deteriorating every day. He further submits that even when the vehicle of the petitioner was not being used in any Mining activities yet on the direction of the District Mining Officer, Purnea, the Dagarua Police seized the vehicle of the petitioner.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that one interlocutory application has been filed for addition of prayer in the main writ petition for quashing the letter No.408 dated 21.05.2025 issued by Mineral development Officer, Purnea by which a compounding fee/penalty of Rs.10 lacs has been imposed for illegal excavation and transportation of soil/earth by the vehicle in question. However, the learned counsel submits that the Dagarua Police forcibly took away the vehicle of the petitioner without lodging an F.I.R. and preparing a seizure list, even when the vehicle of the petitioner was not used in any mining activities rather the same was being used in leveling the earth of the raiyati land of Sk. Basir for plantation of Makhana.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the vehicle of the
