Vehicles seized under mining laws cannot be released on supurdaginama once confiscation proceedings have been initiated; they can only be released upon payment of penalties and compounding fees. Prior to such proceedings, interim custody may be granted by a criminal court.

Order

Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mining Department submits that the controversy involved in this matter is no more res integra in view of judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.597/2024, decided on 19.05.2025), and the issue raised in this criminal misc. petition being squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said judgment, the petition can be be disposed of in terms of the judgment aforesaid. The relevant para of the judgment reads as follows :-

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the judgments of the coordinate Benches of this Court particularly in the cases of Kishore Singh (supra), Narayan Gadri (supra) and M/s Mahadev Construction (supra), this Court finds that the controversy involved in the present batch of criminal misc. petitions has already been set to rest and is no longer res integra. Therefore, the petitions in hand are to be decided in accordance with the parameters laid down in these judgments.

8. Consequently, it is held that under the mining laws, the state authorities have the powers for initiating confiscation proceedings in relation to the vehicles seized for violation of the mining laws. It is once, the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the vehicle cannot be released on supurdaginama as prayed by few of the petitioners. However, the said vehicles can only be released on payment of penalty and compounding fees. Whereas, the vehicles qua which no confiscation proceedings have yet been commenced, the competent criminal Court can handover interim custody of the vehicles to its true owner as a criminal Court is not supposed to keep a vehicle detained until the confiscation proceedings are commenced and concluded by the mining department.

9. It is however, made clear that in the cases where criminal Court had handed over interim custody of the vehicles to its true owners on supurdaginama, the mining department shall be free to pass confiscation orders and take back the vehicles in accordance with law.

10. The present batch of criminal misc. petitions is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Court for filing fresh applications for release of their vehicle. The competent Court shall decided the fresh applications, if filed, in accordance with the observations made by this Court in para 8 of the judgment.

11. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

12. A copy of this order be placed in each file.”

In view of the submission aforesaid, we are inclined to dispose of this criminal miscellaneous petition in terms of the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina Ram (supra).

Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.