Bibhuti Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1727 Jhar

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1727 Jhar
Judgement Date : 15 January, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Bibhuti Kumar Sinha vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 15 January, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            W.P. (Cr.) No. 448 of 2024


                 Bibhuti Kumar Sinha, aged about 47 years, son of late Sant
                 Kumar Sinha, resident of Purna Nagar Road, Koderma, P.O. &
                 P.S.-Koderma, Dist.-Koderma
                                                      ....                Petitioner
                                        Versus

                 1. The State of Jharkhand            through its Chief Secretary,
                   Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi
                 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, Dist.-
                   Koderma
                 3. District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, Dist.-
                   Koderma
                                                      ....                  Respondents


                                        PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer

for issuance of appropriate writ/order for quashing the order

dated 03.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy

Commissioner, Koderma in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 in

connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 whereby and

where under, four trucks of the petitioner which were allegedly

involved in transportation of stone chips illegally were confiscated

by the respondent no.2 in exercise of the provision of Jharkhand

Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage)

Rules, 2017.

3. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of the written report

submitted by the respondent no.3-District Mining Officer,

Koderma, Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 was registered

involving the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of

Indian Penal Code as well as Rule 9 and 13 of Jharkhand Mineral

(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules,

2017 and Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules,

2004 against seven accused persons including the petitioner on the

allegation that the said four trucks of the petitioner which were

parked near a petrol pump were found loaded with illegally

extracted stone chips.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner filed a petition before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Koderma for release of the said vehicles which was

allowed but instead of releasing the said vehicles, on the basis of

the written report of the respondent no.3, Confiscation Case No.

80 of 2023 was instituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma

under the purported exercise of the power vested upon the

respondent no.2 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal

Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017. It is next

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide the

impugned order in exercise of the power under Rule 11 (v) of the

said of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,

Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, the respondent no.2

allowed the said Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 and directed

confiscation of the four trucks of the petitioner mentioned in the

said order. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has got no

jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 11 (v) of the said

Rules and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relied

upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 941 of 2023 in

the case of Manoranjan Rooj vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated

28.11.2023. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this

writ petition be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that in view of the

judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C)

No. 6788 of 2023 and allied cases dated 22.07.2024 wherein, it has

been categorically held by the Division Bench of this Court that it

is only the court taking cognizance who is confiscating authority

under the said Act and Rules 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 of Rule 11 (v) of the said Rule is in conflict with the

parent Act. Thus Rule 11 (v) of the of Jharkhand Mineral

(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules,

2017 is ultra vires to the parent Act; the impugned order is not

sustainable in law.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent

to mention here that in the impugned order dated 03.11.2023

passed in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 by the respondent

no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, it has been categorically

mentioned that the said order of confiscation has been passed in

exercise of the power vested upon the respondent no.2 under Rule

11 (v) of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining,

Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017. As already indicated

above, the said Rule 11 (v) of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of

Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 has been

held ultra vires to the parent Act i.e. Mines and Minerals

(Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, as has been held by the

Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.6788 of 2023 in the

case of M/s. Aditya Enterprises & Ors. vs. The State of

Jharkhand & Ors. along with allied cases dated 22.07.2024.