Rajkishore Rout vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 9191 Ori

Orissa High Court

Rajkishore Rout vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 17 October, 2025

Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                                                    Signature Not Verified
                                                                    Digitally Signed
                                                                    Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
                                                                    Reason: Authentication
                                                                    Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
                                                                    CUTTACK
                                                                    Date: 22-Oct-2025 15:32:00



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                 W.P.(C) No.23888 of 2025
        (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
        Constitution of India, 1950).

        Rajkishore Rout                              ....               Petitioner(s)
                                          -versus-
        State of Odisha and Ors.                     ....        Opposite Party (s)

      Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:

        For Petitioner(s)             :         Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Adv.
                                                 Mr. Satyam Das Pattanaik, Adv.

        For Opposite Party (s)        :                     Mr. Sonak Mishra, ASC

                            CORAM:
                            DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

                       DATE OF HEARING:-23.09.2025
                      DATE OF JUDGMENT: -17.10.2025
      Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a

direction for release of a Tata Signa (Hyva Truck) bearing Registration

No.OD05BY3505, which, according to the petitioner, has been illegally

seized and detained by the Tahasildar, Niali, without authority of law

and in disregard of due process, rendering the said action

unsustainable in law.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The present writ petition arises out of the seizure and detention of a

Tata Signa (Hyva Truck) bearing Registration No. OD05BY3505,

alleged to have been involved in the transportation of sand from the

Kulashree area under Niali Tahasil in Cuttack district. The vehicle is

registered in the name of a partnership firm, R.K. Rout & Partners,

which is engaged in commercial transportation activities. The incident

in question took place on 10.06.2025, when a joint enforcement team

comprising officials of the Niali Tahasil and personnel of the Niali

Police Station conducted a raid in the Kulashree area to check

unauthorized transportation of minor minerals.

(ii) During the said operation, two Hyva trucks, including the vehicle in

question, were found carrying sand without production of valid

transit permits i.e. Y-Forms. Both vehicles were seized on the spot by

the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali Police Station, in the presence of

witnesses, and the seizure was recorded vide General Diary Entry No.

22 dated 10.06.2025. The vehicles were thereafter placed under the

custody of Niali Police Station for safe keeping. A report of the seizure

was submitted on the same day to the Mining Officer-cum-Competent

Authority, Minor Minerals, Cuttack, through Daily Report No. 1862/PS

dated 10.06.2025.

(iii) Subsequent to the seizure, the Mining Officer sought verification of

ownership from the RTO, Cuttack, and initiated steps for assessment

of penalty in accordance with Rule 51(1)(xi) of the Odisha Minor

Minerals Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023. The ownership details

of the vehicle were later confirmed, and the vehicle continued to

remain in custody pending further action.

(iv) Meanwhile, the registered owner of the vehicle approached various

authorities seeking its release, alleging that the seizure had been made

without due authority or proper notice. The owner submitted

representations before the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur,

requesting release of the vehicle and clarification of the grounds for its

detention. It is stated that no formal communication or seizure list was

served upon the owner. The vehicle, being stationary in open

conditions for an extended period, reportedly suffered physical

deterioration due to weather exposure.

(v) The records indicate that the vehicle had been financed through a loan

obtained from Bandhan Bank, Cuttack Branch, and that monthly

installments continued to accrue during the period of seizure. The

owner, claiming financial distress on account of the vehicle's non-

operation, eventually invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court

seeking release of the vehicle and a declaration that the seizure was

without sanction of law.

(vi) The essential facts for adjudication, therefore, concern the authority

under which the seizure was made, the compliance or otherwise with

the procedure prescribed under the Odisha Minor Minerals

Concession Rules, and whether the detention of the vehicle stands

justified within the framework of statutory and constitutional

protections.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following

submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) On the fateful night, the driver of the Petitioner's vehicle informed that

one transporter had offered a consignment for transportation of sand

from the Kulashree area under Niali Tahasil and that the requisite

Form "Y" was being arranged. However, when no further

communication was received from the driver till late night, the

Petitioner made several attempts to contact him, but his mobile phone

was found to be switched off. Entertaining suspicion, the Petitioner

tracked the vehicle's GPS location and found it stationed within the

premises of Niali Police Station, exposed to sun and rain.

(ii) Upon visiting the said Police Station, the Petitioner was informed that

the vehicle had been detained during a purported raid conducted

under the directions of the Tahasildar, Niali, and that the vehicle had

been placed under the custody of the Police for "safe keeping".

Thereafter, upon approaching the office of the Tahasildar, Niali, the

Petitioner was apprised that the officials of the said office had seized

the vehicle and handed it over to the concerned Police Station and that

the only recourse available to the Petitioner was to approach the

competent court for release of the vehicle.

(iii) Subsequently, on 10.06.2025, the I.I.C., Niali Police Station, entered the

particulars of the said seizure in the General Diary and made a

requisition to the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur, seeking

instructions for further action as per law, vide OR No. 1862 dated

10.06.2025. Notwithstanding such entry, no FIR has been lodged

before the competent court nor any proceeding initiated under the

relevant provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and

Regulation) Act, 1957, or the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession

Rules, 2016. The Petitioner's vehicle, laden with materials, has been

lying idle and exposed to the vagaries of weather for over two months,

causing considerable deterioration to its mechanical condition due to

prolonged exposure to sunlight, rainfall, and corrosive moisture.

(iv) The Petitioner, being aggrieved by such illegal detention, submitted a

written representation before the Deputy Director of Mines, Jagatpur,

praying for release of the vehicle and seeking clarification as to the

grounds and authority under which the seizure had been effected.

However, no response or action was forthcoming from the said

authority. It is further pertinent to note that the Opposite Party

authorities, after effecting the alleged seizure, neither prepared or

served any seizure list upon the Petitioner nor issued any notice as

contemplated under law, nor demanded any compounding fee or

penalty. The said inaction is contrary to the mandatory provisions of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988.

(v) The action of the Opposite Party authorities in seizing and detaining

the Petitioner's commercial vehicle is not only illegal and arbitrary but

also mala fide, without jurisdiction, and contrary to the express

provisions of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016. Rule

51(1)(ii) of the said Rules clearly delineates the authorities competent

to effect seizure of vehicles involved in illegal mining activities. For

ready reference, the said provision reads as follows:

"Rule 51(1)(ii): The Director or Additional Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director or Mining Officer or Assistant Mining Officer or Junior Mining Officer or Divisional Forest Officer or Assistant Conservator of Forest or Range Officer or Police Officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police may seize the minor minerals and its products together with all tools, equipment and vehicles used in

committing such offence within their respective jurisdiction."

(vi) From the above provision, it is manifest that a Tahasildar does not fall

within the category of officers empowered to effect seizure under the

OMMC Rules, 2016. Hence, the purported seizure of the Petitioner's

vehicle by the Tahasildar, Niali, is ultra vires and without any legal

sanction.

(vii) As a consequence of such illegal and arbitrary seizure, the Petitioner

has suffered immense financial hardship and mental harassment.

Despite facing severe constraints, the Petitioner managed to pay two

monthly EMIs amounting to ₹1,92,400/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety-

Two Thousand Four Hundred Only) by borrowing funds. The

continued detention of the vehicle has not only crippled the

Petitioner's means of livelihood but has also imposed upon him an

undue financial burden.

(viii) It is further submitted that, by failing to prepare and furnish a seizure

list or lodge a complaint before the competent court, the Opposite

Party authorities have effectively deprived the Petitioner of his

statutory right to seek release of the vehicle before the jurisdictional

magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973. The said omission and inaction are ultra vires and

amount to a gross violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights

guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of

India.

(ix) It is also relevant to mention that the Opposite Party authorities do not

possess any designated premises for safe custody of the seized vehicle,

as a result of which the Petitioner's vehicle has been exposed to

weather-induced damage and deterioration. The officials involved in

the illegal seizure are personally liable for their actions, warranting

disciplinary proceedings against them. The Petitioner further prays

that the costs of litigation and the monthly installments paid during

the period of illegal seizure may be recovered from the salaries of such

erring officers.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opp. Parties earnestly made the

following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i). It is respectfully submitted that, pursuant to credible information

regarding rampant illegal transportation of sand in the Kulashree area

under Niali Tahasil; the Tahasildar, Niali issued directions to conduct

a joint enforcement raid to curb such activities. The said order

required that all preventive steps be taken to check unauthorized

extraction and transportation of sand and that the Mining Officer,

Cuttack, be kept informed of the actions taken.

(ii). In compliance with the said directions, a joint enforcement team

comprising Sri Sitakanta Sahoo (JRA), Sri Pramod Kumar Behera

(ARI), Sub-Inspector Prasanta Kumar Behera, and other police

personnel of Niali Police Station, under the supervision of Tahasildar

Sri Tarem Ranjan Ray, conducted a raid in the Kulashree area on

10.06.2025.

(iii). During the course of the raid, two Hyva trucks bearing Registration

Nos. OD05BY3505 and OD02CA6571 were found transporting sand

without any valid documents. Upon demand, the respective drivers

failed to produce the requisite Y-Form or Transit Permit authorizing

such transport.

(iv). Accordingly, Sub-Inspector Prasanta Kumar Behera, being an officer

duly empowered under Rule 51(1)(xii) of the Odisha Minor Minerals

Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2023, seized both sand-laden vehicles

in the presence of independent witnesses. The seizure was recorded

vide General Diary Entry No. 22 dated 10.06.2025, and written

acknowledgments were duly obtained from the respective drivers. The

seized vehicles were thereafter kept in safe custody at Niali Police

Station, Cuttack.

(v). Immediately after the seizure, the I.I.C., Niali Police Station,

communicated the fact of seizure to the Mining Officer-cum-

Competent Authority, Minor Minerals, Cuttack, vide Daily Report No.

1862 dated 10.06.2025, for initiation of action under law. On enquiry,

the Mining Officer ascertained that no valid permission had been

issued to the said vehicles for transportation of sand on the date of

their interception and seizure.

(vi). Thereafter, the Mining Officer, Cuttack, vide his letter dated

07.08.2025, requested the RTO, Cuttack, to furnish ownership details

of the vehicle bearing Registration No. OD05BY3505. Upon receipt of

confirmation regarding ownership, the Mining Officer is to take

necessary steps for imposition of penalty as per Rule 51(1)(xi) of the

OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023, and the Notification of the

Directorate of Minor Minerals, Steel and Mines Department,

Government of Odisha. Until such process is completed, the seized

vehicle continues to remain under safe custody at Niali Police Station

premises.

(vii). The Opposite Parties further submit that the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Niali Police Station, who effected the seizure, is a competent authority

under the OMMC (Amendment) Rules, 2023, to undertake such

seizure. Rule 51(1)(xii) specifically empowers a police officer not below

the rank of Sub-Inspector to seize any minor mineral, its products, or

vehicles used in commission of an offence. Hence, the seizure of the

Petitioner's vehicle was carried out strictly within the ambit of

statutory powers and procedural compliance.

(viii). It is thus contended that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner

seeking release of the vehicle on the premise that it was illegally seized

by the Tahasildar, Niali, is misconceived and devoid of merit. The

Tahasildar did not effect the seizure himself; rather, the same was

executed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Niali, in accordance with the

law. The operation was a lawful enforcement measure undertaken

under official supervision and with proper coordination between the

Tahasil and Police authorities.

(ix). The Opposite Parties therefore submit that the seizure of the

Petitioner's vehicle was conducted in due compliance with the OMMC

(Amendment) Rules, 2023, was duly reported to the competent

authority, and was followed by all procedural formalities. The

allegations of mala fides, arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction are

baseless, and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the documents

placed before this Court.

6. The first issue to be decided is whether the seizure of the petitioner's

vehicle was effected by a competent authority under law. Rule 51(1)(ii)

of the Odisha Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2016 (as amended in

2023) enumerates the officers empowered to seize vehicles involved in

illegal mining. These include officers of the Mines Department

(Director, Deputy/Assistant Mining Officers, etc.), Forest Officers

(Range Officer and above), and "any Police Officer not below the rank of

Sub-Inspector of Police"

7. Notably, a Tahasildar is not included in this list. In the present case,

however, while the raid was supervised by the Tahasildar, the record

shows that the actual seizure was carried out by the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Niali P.S., as reflected in General Diary Entry No.22 dated

10.06.2025. A police officer of that rank is expressly empowered under

Rule 51 to seize vehicles transporting minor minerals without

authorization. Therefore, the seizure per se cannot be held void on the

ground of lack of authority. Even if the Tahasildar initiated or directed

the operation, the fact remains that a duly authorized police officer

conducted the seizure; this satisfies the statutory requirement. The

petitioner's contention that the seizure was ultra vires because a

Tahasildar ordered it is thus not tenable in law, since the enforcement

team included an authorized officer who actually exercised the power

of seizure.

8. However, merely establishing the authority for seizure does not end

the matter. The gravamen of the petition is that after the vehicle was

seized, the authorities failed to adhere to due process for confiscation

or release as mandated by law. It is undisputed that no FIR or criminal

complaint was lodged under the MMDR Act or the IPC. Instead, the

only action taken was an intimation to the Mining Officer on

10.06.2025 and a subsequent letter on 07.08.2025 seeking ownership

verification for the purposes of imposing a penalty under Rule

51(1)(xi) of the OMMC Rules. Till date, no notice of any confiscation or

penalty proceeding has been served on the petitioner, nor has any

compounding fee been demanded. The vehicle remains in limbo at the

police station for about five months, exposed to the elements and

steadily deteriorating. This state of affairs prima facie violates the

petitioner's right to property and livelihood.

9. Now, the OMMC Rules and allied policies envisage that a vehicle

seized for illegal mining should not be kept in custody indefinitely

without recourse. Rule 51(1)(xi) provides for imposition of a penalty

(essentially a form of compounded compensation) on the offender,

which, if paid, would secure release of the seized property. Indeed, the

State of Odisha has recently put in place a structured penalty regime

for release of seized vehicles, in line with environmental guidelines.

For example, a notification of October 2024 prescribes graduated fines

(ranging up to ₹4 lakhs for newer heavy vehicles) for the release of

equipment and vehicles caught in illegal mining. The intent of the law

is clearly to discourage illegal mining through financial penalties,

while still allowing the vehicle to be released upon payment of dues.

Thus, once the alleged violation is detected and the necessary penalty

assessed, the vehicle should either be released on payment of such

penalty or subjected to formal confiscation proceedings in a court of

law.

10. In the present case, the Opposite Parties have not shown any

justification for keeping the truck impounded without promptly

completing the penalty assessment and offering the petitioner an

opportunity to pay and secure release. There is also no indication that

the vehicle is required as material evidence in any pending trial. In

fact, no trial or prosecution has even begun. With modern techniques,

the essential evidence (such as photographs of the laden vehicle,

samples of the sand, etc.) can be preserved without physically holding

the entire truck hostage. Continuing to detain the vehicle serves little

purpose except to punish the owner by attrition.

11. A consistent line of judicial precedents has reaffirmed that the

prolonged retention of seized vehicles in police custody serves no

meaningful purpose and results only in their gradual deterioration

and depreciation. In this context, the Supreme Court, in Sunderbhai

Ambala Desai v. State of Gujarat,1 unequivocally held as follows:

"In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles."

(2002) 10 SCC 283.

12. The underlying rationale is that a vehicle is a depreciating asset which

should not be idly stuck in legal quagmire. More recently, in

Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam,2 the Supreme Court considered a

case of a truck seized during pendency of an NDPS trial, and

reiterated that keeping a vehicle in custody for years benefits no one.

The Court noted as following:

"34. This Court is also of the view that if the Vehicle in the present case is allowed to be kept in the custody of police till the trial is over, it will serve no purpose. This Court takes judicial notice that vehicles in police custody are stored in the open. Consequently, if the Vehicle is not released during the trial, it will be wasted and suffering the vagaries of the weather, its value will only reduce.

35. On the contrary, if the Vehicle in question is released, it would be beneficial to the owner (who would be able to earn his livelihood), to the bank/financier (who would be repaid the loan disbursed by it) and to the society at large (as an additional vehicle would be available for transportation of goods)."

13. These pronouncements are squarely applicable here. The petitioner's

livelihood has been crippled as his commercial truck lies unused; the

financier (a bank that lent on the vehicle) is also adversely affected as

loan installments mount in default. No societal interest is served by

the vehicle's stagnation, on the contrary, getting the truck back on the

road (subject to legal conditions) means it can contribute to economic

activity and even legally transport minerals in the future.

[2025] 1 SCR 281

14. In Rajesh Kumar Sahu v. State of Odisha,3 I had the opportunity to

decide a similar case where a vehicle was seized and kept in custody

for over a year during an NDPS case, this Court ordered its release,

observing that "by its very nature, a vehicle is intended for active use and

mobility, and its prolonged immobility in official custody serves no

substantive legal or practical purpose".

15. In light of the above principles, the continued detention of the

petitioner's Tata Signa Hyva truck for nearly five months without any

formal proceeding is unsustainable. The Opposite Parties have not

instituted any confiscation case before a Magistrate, which means the

petitioner cannot even avail the remedy of interim release under

Section 451/457 of the Cr.P.C. The only process contemplated,

imposition of a Rule 51 penalty, has languished without conclusion.

This administrative indecision de facto deprives the petitioner of his

property and livelihood without the safeguard of adjudication. Such a

situation offends the constitutional guarantee of fairness. While the

State undoubtedly has a legitimate interest in preventing illegal

mining and punishing offenders, that objective can be met by levying

monetary penalties as per law and, if necessary, prosecuting the

culprits. It does not require the vehicle to be held interminably when

no further investigative purpose is served. If the worry is that

releasing the truck might enable future wrongdoing or make it

unavailable for a future proceeding, that can be addressed by

imposing appropriate conditions and security, rather than outright

denial of release.

          2025 SCCOnline Ori 866













V.    CONCLUSION:

16. In light of the comprehensive exposition of the law provided above, it

is directed that the detained vehicle (Tata Signa Hyva Truck bearing

Registration No. OD-05-BY-3505) shall be released in favor of the

petitioner (registered owner) forthwith, subject to the following

conditions which the petitioner must fulfill to the satisfaction of the

competent authority:

(a) The petitioner shall produce the original Registration

Certificate of the vehicle, valid insurance, and any other relevant

documents before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer.

Attested copies of these documents shall be retained on record

(b) The petitioner 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

(c) The petitioner will furnish recent photographs of the vehicle

from multiple angles before release

(d) The petitioner shall furnish a security bond of ₹2,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the form of property security or

cash/bank guarantee to ensure production of the vehicle as and

when required. 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.

(e) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the competent

authority or Court whenever called upon during the inquiry or

trial of the alleged offense. Failure to produce the vehicle or

violation of any of the above conditions will entail cancellation of

this release order and consequences in accordance with law.

17. Additionally, the Opposite Party authorities (particularly the Mining

Officer, Cuttack and any other 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.

18. 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 conclusion

as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from

today. This direction is necessary to uphold the rule of law and ensure

that the petitioner's rights are not kept in abeyance indefinitely. The

authorities shall also bear in mind the mandate of the Supreme Court

that seized property must be preserved, not destroyed by inaction.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed.

20. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall

be no order as to costs.

21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th October, 2025/ /