Soumya Ranjan Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9786 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 9786 Ori
Judgement Date : 10 November, 2025

Orissa High Court

Soumya Ranjan Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                                         W.P.(C) No.31580 of 2025

                                          Soumya Ranjan Mohanty         ....             Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Mr. Satyam Das Pattanaik, Adv.

                                                                 -versus-
                                          The State of Odisha & Ors. ....            Opposite Party(s)
                                                                             Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC

                                                 CORAM:
                                                 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                                  Order                              ORDER
                                  No.                               10.11.2025

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming

himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle in

question bearing registration No.OD-02-CA-6571 which is

alleged to have been seized due to some unlawful activity,

has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite

Parties for releasing the said vehicle in his favour.

Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also made the

following prayer:-

                                                   "xxx                   xxx              xxx
                                                 i)    The illegal seizure proceeding by

Tahasildar, Niali and the subsequent proceedings under OMMC Rules initiated by the Mining Officer, Jagatpur against Petitioner's vehicle Bharat Benz (Hyva

Designation: Personal Assistant 6571 shall not be quashed;

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22

ii) The Opposite Party authorities shall not be directed to pay the compensation amount of the loss which has occurred due to the illegal and arbitrary act of the Opposite Party authorities;

                                         xxx                    xxx                xxx"
                                  3. Heard.

4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits

that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the

case of Rajkishore Rout Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors. vide

judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23888 of

2025. He, in the process, submits that since this Writ

Petition arises out of an issue of similar nature, this Writ

Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment

passed in the case of Rajkishore Rout (Supra).

5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that

she has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the

light of the judgment passed in the case of Rajkishore

Rout (Supra).

6. On the perusal of the records and the judgment passed

in the case of Rajkishore Rout (Supra), it appears that

similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the

said judgment. It is, accordingly, directed that the above

noted seized vehicle shall be released in favour of the

Petitioner (registered owner) forthwith, subject to the

conditions that the Petitioner:-

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22

(i) shall produce the original Registration Certificate, valid insurance, and any other relevant documents of the seized vehicle before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer, Attested copies of these documents shall be retained on record;

(ii) shall not change the colour or any identifying part of the vehicle (engine or chassis number) and shall not transfer or sell the vehicle to any third party without permission of the Court;

(iii) shall furnish recent photographs of the vehicle from multiple angles before release;

(iv) shall furnish a security bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) in the form of property security or cash/bank guarantee before the authority concerned;

This amount is fixed taking into account the nature of the vehicle and the potential penalty for the alleged violation; it is subject to adjustment by the authorities, if any, statutory rule specifically prescribes a higher penalty or security for such release;

(v) shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any illegal purpose; and

(vi) shall produce the seized vehicle in the court or before the authority concerned as and when required;

7. In case of violation of any of the above conditions by the

Petitioner, the entire amount shall be forfeited and will be

deposited with the Odisha Police Relief and Welfare Fund

and this order would not be applicable.

8. Additionally, the Opposite Parties/authorities

(particularly the Mining Officer, Cuttack and any other Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22

competent authority under the OMMC Rules) are directed

to initiate and conclude appropriate proceedings against

the Petitioner in a time-bound manner. If the intent is to

levy a penalty under Rule 51(1)(xi) of the OMMC Rules,

such penalty notice should be issued forthwith, so that the

Petitioner may contest it or comply by payment.

9. If the State intends to prosecute the Petitioner under the

MMDR Act and OMMC Rules, then a proper complaint

under Section 22 of the MMDR Act should be filed before

the jurisdictional Court without further delay. In either

scenario, no further unjustified delay shall be tolerated.

The entire process should be carried to its logical