The High Court of Jharkhand released the vehicles of petitioners which were confiscated after a case was filed against them under Sections 21(1), 21(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 and held that minerals can be released on payment of double amount of the cost of the minerals, to be deposited before the competent authority and the petitioners have already deposited double amount before the concerned authority under Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017.
Brief Facts:
The present petition was filed for quashing the order of the trial court whereby the vehicles of petitioners were directed to be confiscated after a case was registered under Sections 175, 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 21(1), 21(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that during the pendency of the said revision case, the order of confiscation of the vehicles in question has been passed and further referred to Section 22 of the act and submitted that cognizance can be taken on a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf, which is lacking in the case in hand as the FIR has been registered and further if the said Act is involved, only Special Court can proceed with the matter. He further refers to Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 and submits that the constitution of Special Courts is provided therein. He submits that Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power. He further submits that in view of the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the same was incorporated in Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 by virtue of Rule-13 thereof and, therefore, an appropriate order can be passed by this Court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that petitioners are having alternative remedy and further in view of Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, the officers are authorised to stop, check, search and verify at any vehicles carrying the minerals from the mine. She submits that the competent authority has seized the vehicles in question under Rule 11 of the said Rules, 2017 and there e is provision of an appeal in view of Rule 14 of the said Rules, 2017 and Rule 15 of the said Rules speaks of revision.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that in view of Sections 175, 379 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 21(1), 21(6) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 4/54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the only complaint can be entertained, whereas, an FIR was registered in the present case and further the court has still not taken cognizance even though the petitioners are ready to face the trial, however, vehicles in question are being deteriorated day by day as vehicles stand in open in the concerned Police Station.
The court further referred to Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and stated that any mineral, tool, equipment, or vehicle can be confiscated by an order of the Court competent to take cognizance and further referred to Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules and stated that upon deposition of double amount, seized minerals can be released in favour of the accused but in the present case, the double amount has already been deposited by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner and thus the case is lacking certain procedures which are prescribed.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and released the vehicles with certain terms and conditions.
Case Title: Lakshman Prasad Yadav and ors. vs State of Jharkhand and ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: W.P. (Cr.) No. 303 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Omiya Anusha
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
