Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 4726
PATNA HIGH COURT
Sandeep Kumar, J
M/s TTC Infra India - Jayzee Construction (JV) – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16751 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr.Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate, Mr.Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, AC to GP-22
Jurisdictional overreach in enforcing penalties for illegal mining was challenged under the provisions of the Bihar Minerals Rules, with the court emphasizing compliance with legal processes.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Bihar Minerals (Prevention Of Illegal Mining, Storage And Transportation) Rules, 2019 regulates mining activities. Facts of the Case: The petitioner seeks to quash the penalty under rule 56 and seize orders for a crusher machine used in road construction, claiming jurisdictional overreach.
Findings of Court:
The court stayed the orders and allowed continued usage due to public interest and ongoing works.
Issues: The petitioner questioned the legality of imposed penalties under rule 56 for illegal mining.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized jurisdictional compliance and proper notice regarding penalties, articulating the principle of natural justice.
Result: Stay granted on the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to continue operations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seizure actions and penalties were imposed based on jurisdictional claims. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court emphasized the importance of public interest and staying unlawful actions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. final stay order allows continued operations for public works. (Para 7) |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
7 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The following prayer has been made by the petitioner:-
“a) For issuance of a writ or order or a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the letter bearing reference number 1229/M Dated 03.09.2025 issued by the respondent collector Bhagalpur and letter bearing reference number 1315/M dated 03.10.2025 issued under the signatures of the respondent Mines Development Officer Bhagalpur, the Additional Collector (Revenue) Bhagalpur and the district collector Bhagalpur whereby the petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of 19, 29,39,111 by way of penalty under rule 56 of the Bihar Minerals (Prevention Of Illegal Mining, Storage And Transportation) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as those 2019 for short);
b) For further issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the seizure memo dated 19.03.2025 and also for quashing of the letter bearing reference number camp - 01/M dated 19.03.2025 both issued by the respondent Mines Inspector, Bhagalpur whereby the crusher machine of the petitioner consisting of 3 units has been seized without jurisdiction and in most illegal, unreasonable and arbitrary manner, c) For further issuance of a writ or order or a direction granting and restoring all rights to the petitioner to use, maintain, manage, operate and dispose of the crusher machine in question without any interference of the respondents;
d) for further holding and a declaration that the crusher machine purchased, used and operated by the petitioner exclusively for the purpose of execution of public project in terms of File number NH-12014/6/2021-RO Patna signed with the Ministry of Road Transport And Highways, Government of India, New Delhi could never be held to be a crusher unit installed for the purpose of mining activities as contemplated under rules 2019 and therefore the petitioner could never have been proceeded against for the charge of illegal mining in terms of rule 56 of the rules 2019;
e) For further holding and a declaration that the whole action of the respondents in imposing penalty under rule 56 of rules 2019 is without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice as prior show cause notice preceded such imposition of penalty;
f) For further restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the amount of penalty imposed in terms of the impugned letters dated 03.09.2025 and 03.10.2025 issued by the concerned respondents.”
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned actions has been passed/ taken by the Mining Department on the pressure of the local MLA.
4. Learned counsel further submits that the crusher in question is being used for strengthening and widening of NH-80 from 132.895 km. to 190.150 km. (Bhagalpur- Kahalgaon-
Mirzachowki Section).
5. Because of the impugned order, the work of public importance is being hampered. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order should remain stayed during pendency of the writ petition.
6. This application shall be heard and there shall be complete stay of the impugned order i.e. no coercive steps shall be taken for realization of the penalty imposed by the department and the petitioner shall be allowed to use the crusher for the ongoing project, mentioned above.
7. In the meantime, the crusher in question shall not be sold by the petitioner i.e. no third party right shall be created by the petitioner with regard to the crusher in question.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
