Uttarakhand High Court
Siddharth Grower vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 August, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2177 of 2023
Siddharth Grower ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to an
order dated 24.05.2023, passed by the respondent no.2, the
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vikas Nagar, by which an
application for the release of a vehicle, bearing Registration
Number UK-07CB-7827 ("the vehicle"), made by the petitioner
has been declined quoting Rule 14(4)(A) of the Uttarakhand
Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transport and Storage)
Rules 2021 ("the Rules").
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. According to the case, the vehicle was
intercepted on 20.02.2023, while transporting minerals
illegally. It was taken into possession by the authorities. Its
release has been declined by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle; he did not
commit three offences in a year; he had recently purchased
the vehicle; this is his first offence.
5. Learned State Counsel would submit that Rule
14(4)(A) of the Rules, the word used is, 'Vahan', therefore, it is
the third offence for the vehicle concerned. That is why the
vehicle has been seized by the police.
6. Learned State Counsel would also submit he has
received the instructions. No counter affidavit is required to
be filed.
7. The instructions tendered by learned State
Counsel are taken on record.
8. The Court posed a question to learned State
Counsel that Rule 14(4)(A) of the Rules speaks of forfeiting.
Has the proceedings been initiated or has the vehicle been
forfeited? Learned State Counsel would submit that the
impugned order says, "zapt kar liya jaega."
9. The Court had requested the officer, who issued
the impugned order to join the proceedings through video
conferencing. He would also quote Rule 14(4)(A) of the Rules
to submit that the vehicle may be forfeited under that
provision. According to him, the proceedings have yet not
been initiated.
10. In contemplation of proceedings for confiscation,
a vehicle may not be detained, if otherwise, it may be
released. The proceedings of confiscation are quite distinct
than detaining and taking possession of a vehicle involved in
any offence. Taking possession of a vehicle involved in an
offence may be temporary till the criminal liability is
adjudicated by a court of law subject to an order of the Court
passed during pendency of the case, and/or, subsequently,
such possession would be governed by the final order of the
Court. But, confiscation is something quite distinct. It has
graver civil consequences. It divests a person of his Right to a
Property. Such person should be afforded an opportunity of
hearing to explain that his property is to be confiscated in
favour of the State.
11. As yet, as per learned State Counsel or as per
Sub Divisional Magistrate, Vikasnagar, such proceedings have
not been initiated. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
this order is bad in the eye of law. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be allowed.
12. The petition is allowed. The order dated
24.05.2023 is set aside.
13. The vehicle could have been released in favour of
the petitioner had it been involved in the instant case alone.
But, the instructions, which have been tendered by learned
State Counsel, reveals that, in fact, the vehicle has been
challaned under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
as well by the Station House Officer, Police Station-Selaqui,
District Dehradun on 21.05.2023 for various offences. For its
release, the petitioner may very well approach the court of
competent jurisdiction.
14. The petition stands disposed of, accordingly. +
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
04.08.2023
Ravi Bisht
