The court established that vehicles seized for illegal mining can only be released upon payment of penalties if confiscation proceedings are initiated; otherwise, interim custody may be granted to rightful owners.

Order

19/05/2025

1. All these petitions have been filed being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Courts below for release of vehicles of different categories, which have been seized by the respondents for violation of mining laws, on supurdaginama. By the said orders, the prayer for release of vehicles has either been rejected or has been allowed by putting onerous conditions of depositing the amount of penalty and compounded fee as levied by mining officer.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submitted that the vehicles have been seized by the respondents for alleged illegal mining activity as per the provision of Rule 54 read with Rule 60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2017 and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957) read with Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being registered owners of the vehicles in question are entitled to get back the possession of the seized vehicles. There is no other person claiming supurdgi over the said vehicles. It was contended that the vehicles in question may be directed to be released in favour of the petitioners on interim custody keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638 .

3. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the vehicles in question were found involved in transportation of illegal minerals, particularly, bajri/river sand. Learned counsel submitted that the vehicles have been seized by the competent Government officials on finding that they are being used for illegal purposes and in case, they are released on supurdaginama, the possibility of offending vehicles being used in illegal activities of like nature or otherwise cannot be ruled out.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the controversy involved in the present case has already been set to rest by the coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan ( S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3595/2021 ) and Narayan Gadri v. State of Rajasthan ( S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6304/2021 ). The relevant portion of the order passed by the coordinate Bench in Narayan Gadri (supra) is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“10. From the record of the case file herein, it is not clear if in the present case confiscation proceedings have been initiated under Rule 54(6) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017 . In the premise, guided by the aforesaid two judgments rendered by Single Bench and Division Bench of this Court and, taking a harmonious view thereof, the petition in hand is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to verify if the confiscation proceedings have indeed been initiated qua the offending vehicle and if the answer is in affirmative, convey the status thereof in writing to the petitioner.

11. In case, the confiscation proceedings have been initiated, the vehicle shall then be released only on payment of penalty and compounding fee, in terms of ratio rendered in Kishore Singh. However, if it is found that no confiscation proceedings have yet commenced and it is merely an appeal is pendency against the penalty/compounding order passed by mining officer, liberty in that case is granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Court by filing a fresh application for release of vehicle on Superdari. Upon doing so, the same shall be released on furnishing a bank guarantee of an amount equivalent to the current value of impounded vehicle. Current value shall be as per the satisfaction of the learned competent Court dealing with the fresh application, if and when filed. Other conditions shall also be imposed by the learned Court as per Single Bench Judgment rendered in Kishore Singh.”

5. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in almost similar controversy another