Mukesh Kumar Soni Vs the State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No.167 of 2024

------

Mukesh Kumar Soni, Aged about 30 years S/O Sri Rameshwar Prasad Soni, R/O village: Balumath, P.S.: Balumath, P.O. Balumath, District: Latehar, Jharkhand, 829202, Aadhar:680839262094, Mob:9110055364 … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Deputy Commissioner cum District Magistrate, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.: Latehar, District: Latehar.

¶7

Superintendent of Police, Latehar, P.O. & P.S.- Latehar, DistrictLatehar.

¶8

Investigating Officer, Balumath, P.O. & P.S. Balumath, District: Latehar. … Respondents

¶9

For the Petitioner : Mr. Adam Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG

¶10

------

¶11

P R E S E N T

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶13

By the Court:- Heard the parties.

¶14

This Writ Petition (Cr.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Confiscation Case No.61 of 2023. Though, there are several other prayers made in this writ petition, the petitioner abandons all other prayers and confines his prayer only to quash the said order dated 03.11.2023 wherein prayer has also been made to modify the said order dated 03.11.2023 whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar has imposed the condition of depositing 3 lakhs for release of the said truck bearing registration

¶15

¶16

W.P. (Cr.) No.167 of 2024

¶17

no.CG 07 NA 4537. In view of such submission, all other prayers are rejected as not pressed

¶18

The brief fact of the case is that the vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized in Balumath P.S. Case No.34 of 2023. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in exercise of the power under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 has inter alia confiscated with Truck bearing Registration No.CG 07 NA 4537.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6788 of 2023 dated 22.07.2024 in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others and allied cases; it was held by the Division Bench of this court, that the Court taking cognizance is the Confiscating Authority under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017, and further went on to hold that, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner of any district has got no power to initiate and decide a confiscation proceeding; as Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the parent act being the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Confiscation Case No.61 of 2023 having been passed in exercise of the power which has already been declared ultra vires, the order be quashed and set aside.

¶20

Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that the Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage)

¶21

¶22

W.P. (Cr.) No.167 of 2024

¶23

Rules, 2017 has been held to be ultra vires of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

¶24

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as the undisputed facts remains that the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No.61 of 2023 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in exercise of the power under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017; which has already been declared to be ultra vires , hence, this court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No.61 of 2023 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside.

¶25

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶26

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶27

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 03^rd of January, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj

¶28

¶29

W.P. (Cr.) No.167 of 2024

Mukesh Kumar Soni v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Soni v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sarju Kachhap Vs the State of Jharkhand

Manas Patnaik Alias Manas Ranjan Daspattnaik Vs the State of Jharkhand

Amit Ranjan Tiwary Alias Amit Ranjan Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Jharkhand

Basant Kumar Chakraborty Vs the State of Jharkhand

Gokul Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand