Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Kumar Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 175 of 2025
Sanjay Kumar Sahu, aged about 43 yrs, S/O Baldev Prasad
Sahu, R/o Ratu, Anad Mayi Nagar, Ratu, P.O + P.S Ratu,
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Office at
Nepal House, Doranda, P.O + P.S - Doranda, Ranchi. Dist -
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Nepal
House, Doranda, P.O + P.S - Doranda,Dist.- Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, PO + P.S-Latehar,
Jharkhand, Dist. Latehar, Jharkhand.
4. The District Mining Officer, Latehar P.O + P.S - Latehar, Dist.-
Latehar, Jharkhand ..... Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Adv
For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG IA
Ms. Ruchi Mukhi, AC to AAG IA
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Writ Petition Criminal has been filed invoking the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India with the prayer for setting aside the order dated 23.05.2023
passed by the respondent no. 3 being the Deputy Commissioner,
Latehar in Confiscation Case no. 29 of 2023 by which, by which
the respondent no. 3 has confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner
bearing registration no. JH01CJ-7129 and has also directed the
District Mining Officer, Latehar to initiate auction of confiscated
vehicle and minerals after fixing the reserve price in exercise of
the power under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2017.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment in
the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises & Ors. vs. The State of
Jharkhand through its Secretary & Ors. passed in WP(C) no. 6788
of 2023 dated 22.07.2024 and allied case passed by a Division
Bench of this Court, para 33 under the heading 'Summarised
Conclusion', of which reads as under :-
(i) The phrase "court taking cognizance" is the Special Court
constituted in terms of Section 30-B of the Mines and Minerals
(Development & Regulation) Act and where there is no such Special
Court constituted, it will be the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
(ii) It is only the "court taking cognizance", who is the "confiscating
authority" under the Act and the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner of
each District has got no power to initiate and decide a confiscation
proceeding, as the same is in conflict with the parent Act, thus, Rule
11(V) is ultra vires to the parent Act.
submits that in that case, the Division Bench of this court has held
that Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires of
the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957,
hence, it is submitted that since impugned order has been passed
by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in exercise of the power
under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal
Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, which is no
more a good law, having been declared as ultra vires to the parent
Act, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this
writ petition, be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand fairly submits that
the Division Bench of this court has held that Rule 11 (v) of the
Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation
and Storage) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the parent act being
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957.
5. Having heard the submission made at the Bar and after going
through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here
that the said vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the police in
connection with Balumath P.S. case no. 219 of 2022 for the offence
punishable under Section 379/ 411/ 414/ 34 of the IPC and
Section 30 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act as well as
Section 21 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation)
Act, 1957 and Rule 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of
Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. The
undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is the registered owner
of the said vehicle and the Confiscation Case no. 29 of 2023 was
initiated against the petitioner by the respondent no. 3, in exercise
of the power under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals
(Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules,
2017 and ultimately, the impugned order has been passed in
exercise of the power vested upon the respondent no. 3- Deputy
Commissioner, Latehar under the said Rule as the undisputed fact
remains that Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention
of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is no
more a good law having been declared as ultra vires to the parent
act; this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated
23.05.2023 passed in Confiscation Case no. 29 of 2023 by the
Deputy Commissioner cum- District Magistrate, Latehar, being
not sustainable in law, is liable to be quashed and set aside.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 23.05.2023 passed in Confiscation
Case no. 29 of 2023 by the Deputy Commissioner cum- District
Magistrate, Latehar, is quashed and set aside.
7. This writ is petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 10th March, 2025
Smita /AFR
