Orissa High Court
Jagdish Chandra Barik vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 17 June, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.113 of 2025
Jagdish Chandra Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. P.R. Singh, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Mr. S.K. Swain, AGA
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
17.06.2025
Order
No.
01. 1. Heard Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State.
2. Instant revision is filed by the petitioner assailing
the impugned order dated 10th February, 2025 passed in
connection with C.M.C. No.145 of 2024 by learned
J.M.F.C., Barbil, whereby, an application under Section
503 of BNSS seeking release of seized vehicle bearing
Registration No.OD-09G-3859 by the DDM, Joda Circle
in terms of Section 12(1) of the OMPTS Rule 2007 has
been declined on the grounds inter alia that such decision
is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be interfered with
followed by consequential directions issued towards its
release subject to any terms and conditions as would be
fixed in that behalf.
3. In course of hearing, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner would submit that the alleged vehicle was
seized in the year, 2022 and lying in the custody of the
Authority concerned till date. The further submission is
that an application under Section 503 BNSS was moved
before the learned Court below seeking release of the
vehicle in question but it has been disallowed for the
reason that the confiscation proceeding is pending
adjudication as per the Orissa Minerals Rules, 2007. The
contention of Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
is that in view of the decision of this Court in Tafzil Sarwar
Vrs. The Dy. Director, Mines Joda Circle (2015)02 OHC
CK 0060, the Authority concerned has no jurisdiction to
deal with the confiscation as it is to be governed by the
provisions of the MMDR Act and by the competent Court
empowered, even with regard to the disposal of the
property seized thereunder. The submission is that a
direction may perhaps be issued to the learned Court
below to consider such aspect of the case in view of the
law decided by this Court in Tafzil Sarwar (supra) as the
same would serve the purpose and meet the ends of
justice.
4. Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the State requests for
an adjournment to examine the case law referred to by
the other side however the Court is inclined to dispose of
the revision considering the submission of the other side.
5. A copy of the judgment dated 19th November,
2024 in the case (supra) is produced in Court at the time
of hearing by Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, wherein, referring to its earlier citations held
and concluded that disposal of the property seized under
Section 21(4) of the MMDR Act is to be invoked by the
competent Court, inasmuch as, the Authority under the
Orissa Minerals Rules, 2007 has no power to confiscate
the same. On a reading of the above decision, the Court
finds that the order in appeal of learned Additional
District Judge, Champua was set aside as it was concerning
the decision with regard to confiscation under the Orissa
Minerals Rules, 2007 with the liberty granted to the
petitioner therein to move the competent Court, which is
empowered to dispose of the property seized.
Considering the above case law and submission of Mr.
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and response of
the State, the Court is of the view that the matter should
be remitted back to the learned Court below to consider
such disposal of the seizure vehicle afresh keeping in view
the settled position of law with reference to the decision
cited hereinabove and to pass necessary order thereafter.
Such is the view of the Court for the reason that the
vehicle has been seized lying in the custody of the
Authority concerned for about three years by now. In
other words, the Court is inclined to direct learned Court
below to freshly examine release of the seized vehicle in
the light of the directions as aforesaid.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the revision stands disposed of with a
direction to learned J.M.F.C., Barbil to freshly consider
disposal of C.M.C. No.145 of 2024, which is restored to
file for its disposal. It is further directed that upon
production of a certified copy of this order, the learned
Court below shall deal with the matter and to pass
necessary order as per and in accordance with law
providing both the sides reasonable opportunity of
hearing and contentions advanced. As a necessary
corollary, the impugned order dated 10th February, 2025
as at Annexure-1 is hereby set aside for the reasons stated
above.
8. Issue certified copy of this order as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
