Rajesh Mahtha Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

¶1

2025:JHHC:23520-DB

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P (C) No.2435 of 2024

¶4

Rajesh Mahtha, aged about 44 years, son of Bahadur Mahtha, resident of Village-Bhelatand, P.O. Kumirdoba, PS.- Chandankiyari, DistrictBokaro;

¶5

Vimal Kumar Lohar Mishtry, aged about 39 years son of Gobardhan Mishtry, resident of Village & P.O-Pundru, P.S.-Pindrajora, DistrictBokaro;

¶6

Vinod Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Dharni Dhar Manjhi, resident of Village & P.O. Kumardaga, P.S.- Pindrajora, DistrictBokaro,

¶7

Dharnidhar Manjhi, aged about 59 years, son of Kunju Majhi, resident of Village & P.O. Kumardaga, P.S.- Pindrajora, DistrictBokaro,

¶8

Satish Mahtha, aged about 42 years, son of Late Nal Kishore Mahtha, resident of Village & P.O. Kumardaga, P.S.- Pindrajora, DistrictBokaro,

¶9

Dinesh Kumar, aged about 35 years, son of late Narayan Chandra Kubhkar, resident of Village & P.O-Pundru, P.S.-Pindrajora, DistrictBokaro ....... … Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O.-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District- Ranchi.

¶12

Mines Commissioner, Ranchi, Nepal House, P.O & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi

¶13

Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O & P.S-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro

¶14

.… … Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

¶17

¶18

For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Kishore Kr. Singh, SC-V

¶19

Order No.06 / Dated: 13^th August, 2025

¶20

The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking therein the following directions:

¶21

“For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ/order for quashing the Impugned order dated 26.05.2023 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent No:2 in Mines Revision No: 43 of 2022 as well as the order dated 03.03.2021 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent No:3 in Confiscation Case No:07 of 2019 whereby and whereunder their tractors have been confiscated; AND for issuance of a writ in the nature of

¶22

2025:JHHC:23520-DB

¶23

Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to release the Tractors of the Petitioners and within a specified period”.

¶24

It is evident from the factual aspect as per the pleadings made in the present writ petition that the confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 07 of 2019-20 has been concluded on the presumption that the Deputy Commissioner is the Court within the meaning of Mineral Acts/Rules.

¶25

It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that the said issue has been dealt with by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed in W.P(C) No.6788 of 2023 along with W.P(C) No.7531 of 2023 wherein the provision as contained under section 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 enacted in the light of the provision as contained under section 23-C of the MMDR Act, 1957 has been held to be ultra vires.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that entire confiscation proceeding since has been initiated by the Deputy Commissioner who has been held to be having no jurisdiction by virtue of the aforesaid judgment and, hence, the entire proceeding becomes invalid in the eyes of law.

¶27

It has been further submitted that now the Court has taken cognizance, i.e., the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro and, as such, now the remedy of the writ petitioners lies with the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro by making an application for release of their respective vehicles in question.

¶28

Therefore, a liberty has been sought for on behalf of the writ petitioners by making submission that the present writ petition may be disposed of by granting such liberty to the petitioners.

¶29