The Jharkhand High Court directed the state to grant the custody of the vehicle, containing coal at the time of its confiscation to the petitioner and held that the detention of the vehicle was of no use and would only lead to damage and loss of utility of the vehicle and will also cause a loss of revenue to the Government due to the non-pliancy of the commercial vehicle.
Brief Facts:
The vehicle of the petitioner, containing coal was seized because of the expiry of time of the transit challan. The present petition was filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate which rejected the release of the vehicle in question.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was carrying coal based on valid documents and the delay occurred during the payment of diesel at the service station. It was further contended that the petitioner was not claiming the release of coal but the vehicle was commercial in nature and the trial had not concluded yet. It was further argued that according to Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, confiscation is required to be done once the trial is concluded and the petitioner is found to be guilty in the trial. It was further contended that the petitioner is required to pay the double amount of the minerals and the goods in question can be released by virtue of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing for the state contended that the petitioner is the owner of the minerals and he is required to pay the double amount of minerals and the arrangement has been granted in Rule 54(5) of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 on how to deposit and for the release of the vehicle, the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that there was no need to deposit double the amount as the coal in question was not claimed by the petitioner. The court referred to Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957) and observed that “vehicle or anything seized” used in the section refers to any vehicle or anything seized and the same shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court and at the stage it is found and the section further connotes that a finding has to be arrived that the vehicle was used for transportation of coal or mineral in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It was further stated that such a finding can only be arrived if it is brought on record during the trial whereafter the vehicle will be forfeited by the state by the order of court.
It was further stated that the vehicle was lying at the police station in an uncared manner and reference was made to the judgment in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat which held that whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period.
The court concluded that the detention of the vehicle was of no use and would only lead to damage and loss of utility of the vehicle and will also cause a loss of revenue to the Government due to the non-pliancy of the commercial vehicle.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned orders and directed the grant of interim custody of the vehicle to the petitioner based on the terms and conditions as stated by the court.
Case Title: Tuleshwar Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 247 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Rahul Kumar and Ms. Richa Lal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mrs. Rashmi Lal
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
