This court declined to release seized agricultural vehicles in a writ petition, holding that the petitioner must first approach the Tahasildar who initiated proceedings under mining rules, distinguishing the writ jurisdiction from the specific remedial framework provided by the rules.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.28008 of 2020
Heard Mr. B.B. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opposite parties.
This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2 to release the Tractor bearing registration No. OD-19-P-0830 and Trolley No.OD-19P-0831, respectively.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has purchased the aforesaid Tractor and Trolley by incurring loan for earning his livelihood. The Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2 without any rhyme and reasons seized the vehicle on 04.09.2020. Although the petitioner produced all relevant records, the Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2 for the reasons best known to him did not release the Tractor and Trolley. Hence, he is compelled to file this writ petition.
On receipt of notice in the writ petition, the Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2 hastily initiated a proceeding under Rule 51 (1) (ii) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016 (for short, ‘the OMMC Rules’) in TMC Case No.72 of 2020-21 and issued notice to the petitioner for payment of fine of Rs. 2,78,105/-
Mr. Routray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a bonafide user of the vehicle, is not liable to pay the same. As such, he prays for setting aside the said TMC Case No.72 of 2020-21 and for direction to release his Tractor and Trolley.
2
Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that since a proceeding under Rule 51 (1) (ii) of the OMMC Rules has already been initiated, the petitioner may approach the Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2 for release of the Tractor and Trolley.
Taking into consideration the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that since a proceeding under Rule 51 (1) (ii) of OMC Rules has already been initiated in TMC Case No.72 of 2020-21 by the Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2, the petitioner is required to appear before him and putforth his case for release of the vehicle. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in the event the petitioner appears before the Tahasildar, Kaniha-opposite party No.2 within a period of two weeks hence and moves him for release of the Tractor bearing registration No. OD-19-P-0830 and Trolley No.OD-19P-0831, he shall do well to consider the same in accordance with law, giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
……..……………………
K.R. MOHAPATRA,J.
bct
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is required to approach the Tahasildar for release of seized tractor and trolley after a proceeding has been initiated.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of without directing bodily appearance before the Tahasildar.
Petitioner
Tahasildar, Kaniha
State-opposite parties
K.R. MOHAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
