[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Dev Construction vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6706) on 5 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6706]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 991/2026
Shri Dev Construction, Through Propreitor Rajulal S/o Mangilal
Gurjar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Gurjar Mohalla,
Soniyana, P.s Gangrar, District Chittorgarh Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Mines And Minerals Dep T, Through Aag.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Jyani for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
05/02/2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of Mining
Department jointly submit that the controversy involved in this
matter is no more res integra in view of judgment passed by Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina Ram Vs. State of
Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.597/2024, decided on
19.05.2025), and the issue raised in this criminal misc. petition
being squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the said
judgment, the petition can be be disposed of in terms of the
judgment aforesaid. The relevant para of the judgment reads as
follows :-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:30:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6706] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-991/2026]
"6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the judgments of the coordinate Benches of this Court
particularly in the cases of Kishore Singh (supra), Narayan
Gadri (supra) and M/s Mahadev Construction (supra), this
Court finds that the controversy involved in the present batch of
criminal misc. petitions has already been set to rest and is no
longer res integra. Therefore, the petitions in hand are to be
decided in accordance with the parameters laid down in these
judgments.
8. Consequently, it is held that under the mining laws, the state
authorities have the powers for initiating confiscation
proceedings in relation to the vehicles seized for violation of the
mining laws. It is once, the confiscation proceedings are initiated,
the vehicle cannot be released on supurdaginama as prayed by
few of the petitioners. However, the said vehicles can only be
released on payment of penalty and compounding fees. Whereas,
the vehicles qua which no confiscation proceedings have yet been
commenced, the competent criminal Court can handover interim
custody of the vehicles to its true owner as a criminal Court is not
supposed to keep a vehicle detained until the confiscation
proceedings are commenced and concluded by the mining
department.
9. It is however, made clear that in the cases where criminal
Court had handed over interim custody of the vehicles to its true
owners on supurdaginama, the mining department shall be free to
pass confiscation orders and take back the vehicles in accordance
with law.
10. The present batch of criminal misc. petitions is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Court
for filing fresh applications for release of their vehicle. The
competent Court shall decided the fresh applications, if filed, in
accordance with the observations made by this Court in para 8 of
the judgment.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
12. A copy of this order be placed in each file."
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:30:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6706] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-991/2026]
In view of the submission aforesaid, we are inclined to
dispose of this criminal miscellaneous petition in terms of the
judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Chaina
Ram (supra).
Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any,
stands disposed of accordingly.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
95-deep/-
(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 06:30:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
