Jharkhand High Court
Md. Jawed Ahmad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:11336)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No.393 of 2024
------
1. Md. Jawed Ahmad, aged 37 years, son of Md. Kayum, resident of
Donbasko Lane, Ilahi Bux Colony, Kokar, P.O.-G.P.O., P.S.-Sadar,
District-Ranchi.
2. Arun Kumar Gupta, aged 42 years, son of Vishun Prasad Gupta,
resident of Ram Nagar Gali, Kokar, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar,
District Ranchi.
... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar, P.O.
and P.S. Latehar, District-Latehar.
3. Superintendent of Police, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.- Latehar, District-
Latehar.
4. District Mining Officer, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.- Latehar, District-
Latehar.
... Respondents
------
For the Petitioner : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate
: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III
: Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA III
For the OP 4 : Mr. Parambir Singh Bajaj, Advocate
: Mr. Prashant Kr. Rahul, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order
(s)/direction (s) for quashing the order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No.70 of
2023 in connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 registered under
Sections 379, 414, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 21 of MMDR Act, Rule
(2025:JHHC:11336)
13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage, Rules, 2017 by which confiscation proceeding has been initiated
against the vehicles of the petitioners bearing registration no. JH 20 F 1123
which belongs to petitioner no.1 and JH 02 AU 2506 belongs to the petitioner
no.2. Though a further prayer has also been made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners to order for quashing the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar in M.C.A. No.1545 of 2023 in
connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 but the same has not been
pressed by the petitioners, accordingly, the prayer to quash the order dated
05.10.2023 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar is rejected as not
pressed. Yet another prayer has been made to set aside the order dated
16.06.2024 passed in Confiscation Case no.70 of 2023 by the Respondent no.2 by
which the said two vehicles of the petitioners have been directed to be released
with the condition of payment of fine of Rs.1 Lakh and bond of Rs.1 Lakh as
the same is bad in law having been passed without jurisdiction.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on a written information given by the
Respondent No.4-District Mining Officer, Latehar that as per secret
information, raid was conducted and two trucks loaded with coal were found
and on being asked, the drivers produced e-challan but the e-challan was
found beyond the stipulated time period, hence, the said two trucks of the
petitioners were seized and the drivers were arrested. On the basis of the
written report, Herhanj P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 was registered. It is next
submitted that consequent upon the registration of the case, the Deputy
Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar in purported exercise of power
under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining,
(2025:JHHC:11336)
Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 initiated Confiscation Case No.70 of
2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises and others
vs. The State of Jharkhand and others in W.P.(c). No.6788 of 2023 and allied
cases dated 22.07.2024 and submits that therein it has categorically been held
by the Division Bench of this Court that it is only the Court taking cognizance
who is the Confiscating Authority under the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the rules made thereunder being
the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and
Storage) Rules, 2017 and the Deputy Commissioner of any district has got no
power to initiate and decide the confiscation proceeding; as the power vested
upon the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 11(v) of the said rule is in conflict
with the parent Act, thus, Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage, Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the
parent Act being the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957, hence, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 and 16.06.2024 passed by
the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar in the said
Confiscation Case No.70 of 2023 being without any jurisdiction is not
sustainable in law, hence, the same be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the learned counsel for the
respondents fairly submit that the Division Bench of this Court has held that
Rule 11(v) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation
and Storage, Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the parent act.
(2025:JHHC:11336)
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully
going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention
here that the undisputed facts remains that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-
District Magistrate, Latehar has instituted the Confiscation Case No.70 of 2023
in purported exercise of power under Rule 11(v) of Jharkhand Minerals
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage), Rules, 2017. As
already indicated above the said Rule 11(v) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention
of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage, Rules, 2017 has been held to be
ultra vires to the parent act which is the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises and others vs. State of Jharkhand and
others (Supra) in W.P.(C). No.6788 of 2023 and allied cases. Therefore, this
Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023
and 16.06.2024 passed in the said Confiscation Case No.70 of 2023 by the
Respondent No.2 having been passed in purported exercise of power under
Rule 11(v) of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation
and Storage) Rules, 2017 which has already been held to be ultra vires having
been passed without any jurisdiction; the same being not sustainable in law.
7. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 30.05.2023 and 16.06.2024
passed in the said Confiscation Case No.70 of 2023 by the Respondent No.2 in
connection with Herhanj P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 , is quashed and set aside.
8. In this result, this W.P.(Cr). is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 08th of April, 2025
AFR/ Abhiraj
