Jharkhand High Court
Vishwanath Dey @ Bishwanath Dey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 January, 2024
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.963 of 2023
----
Vishwanath Dey @ Bishwanath Dey .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. .... .... Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar, S.C. (M)-II
----
th
02/Dated: 12 January, 2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 11.07.2023, passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Confiscation Case No. 18/2022-23
whereby and where under the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka has
confiscated the Hywa Truck of the petitioner bearing Registration
Nos.JH04Q-6303 & JH04M-6944 and issued direction to the District Mining
Officer, Dumka to dispose of the said Hywa Truck; of which the petitioner is
the bona fide owner.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 18.11.2022 at about 06:30 a.m., a
team of District Mining Task Force also comprising the District Mining
Officer, Dumka and others conducted a raid on a private plot where illegal
stone mining activities were going on and the team seized various
equipment, machines and vehicles including the said Hywa Truck of the
petitioner. Further, explosive substance were also recovered and seized. The
petitioner further submits that he is the bonafide owner of the Hywa Truck.
The petitioner asserts that his said Hywa Truck was never involved in any
illegal activity.
4. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 21 (4-A) of the Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which reads as under:-
"21. (4-A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing
seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an
order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence
under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with
the directions of such court" (emphasis supplied)
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the law is
well settled that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing
seized under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the
court competent who has taken cognizance of the offence under Section
21(1) of the said Act. Hence, it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner
has no jurisdiction to pass any confiscation order in respect of the said
vehicle, in the absence of any order, of the court competent who had taken
cognizance of the offence.
5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the Judgments of Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in W.P.
(Cr.) No. 502 of 2023, dated 13.09.2023, W.P. (Cr.) No. 303 of 2023 dated
06.11.2023 and Cr.M.P. No. 1332 of 2020 dated 11.05.2022.
6. The learned Standing Counsel submits that under Rule 11 (v) of the
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2017 which reads as under:-
"11. Search, Seizure and Confiscation:- (v) Any minerals, tool,
equipment, vehicle or anything seized shall be liable to be
confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy Commissioner
of the concerned district and shall be disposed of in accordance
with direction of such court."
Envisages that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or anything
seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy
Commissioner of the concerned district and shall be disposed of in
accordance with direction of such court and the order dated 11.07.2023
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Confiscation Case No. 18/2022-23 in
accordance with the powers vested upon it under Rule 11(v) of the
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2017. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being
without any merit be dismissed.
7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through
the materials available in the record, the plain reading of Section 21(4-A) of
the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 makes it
abundantly clear that any vehicle seized under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can only be confiscated by an
order of the court competent to take cognizance and the Act envisages that
the same shall be disposed of in accordance with such court.
8. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the vehicle in question
has been seized on 18.11.2022 in relation to Shikaripara P.S. Case No.146 of
2022. The cognizance has been taken by court below. Thus, the court who
has taken cognizance is only competent to take appropriate decision
regarding the confiscation. The Deputy Commissioner has no power to pass
such an order and the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 is wholly without
jurisdiction.
9. In view of the discussions made above, the order dated 11.07.2023,
passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Dumka in
Confiscation Case No. 18/2022-23 is hereby quashed and set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the learned court below who has taken cognizance,
to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
10. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the court below in accordance
with law.
11. With above observation and direction the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
Uploaded
