Allowed¶28

Surendra Singh v. The Additional Chief Secretary (Acs)

Patna HC5 Aug 2025CWJC/6217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Overloading penalty; E-challan dated 20.03.2025; Rule 56(2) amended, Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019; District Mining Officer Sasaram; quashing of penalty order; remand for fresh calculation of penalty; release of seized truck; deposit of penalty; CWJC No.6217 of 2025; Patna High Court; Alok Kumar Sinha, J.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the penalty order dated 20.03.2025 and remand to the District Mining Officer, Sasaram for fresh calculation of penalty under amended Rule 56(2) within 15 days, with the petitioner to deposit the recalculated penalty within a further 15 days and the seized truck to be released within one week of such deposit; writ application allowed to that extent. ¶28

Surendra Singh Vs The Additional Chief Secretary (Acs) — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of Rs.9,09,850/- imposed on the petitioner by the E-challan dated 20.03.2025 under Rule 56(2) as amended of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 was correctly calculated, given that the truck was seized on account of overloading.

¶22

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-P/4) by which a penalty of Rs.9,09,850/- was imposed on the petitioner is quashed.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remanded to the District Mining Officer, Sasaram (Respondent No.3) to calculate the penalty amount afresh in light of amended Rule 56(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019.

¶26

Key takeaways

The fresh calculation of penalty must be carried out within 15 days from the date of the order, and the petitioner is to deposit the freshly calculated penalty within a further period of 15 days.ratio¶26
Upon the petitioner depositing the freshly calculated penalty amount, the seized vehicle shall be released in favour of the petitioner within one week thereafter.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6217 of 2025 (oral order dated 05-08-2025, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Sinha). Surendra Singh challenged the E-challan dated 20.03.2025 issued by the District Mining Officer, Sasaram, which imposed a penalty of Rs.9,09,850/- on him in terms of Rule 56(2) as amended of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019, on account of overloading of his truck (Registration No. UP67AT1637). The record showed the truck was seized solely for overloading (letter dated 23.02.2025 of the Mining Inspector, Rohtas to the S.H.O., Chenari; admission in paragraph no.14 of the Mines Department's counter affidavit), and counsel for the Mines Department conceded the point and sought remand. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-P/4) and remanded the matter to the District Mining Officer, Sasaram (Respondent No.3) for fresh calculation of the penalty under amended Rule 56(2) within 15 days; the petitioner undertook to deposit the recalculated penalty within a further 15 days, whereupon the seized vehicle was to be released within one week. The writ application was allowed to that extent and pending I.As. were deemed disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6217 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Surendra Singh Son of Kamla Singh, Resident of Village-Barej P.S.Mohania, District-Kaimur (Bhabua).

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), Bihar State Mining and Geology Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The Collector Cum District Magistrate, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶8

The District Mining Officer, District-Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶9

The Mining Inspector, District Mining Office Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶10

The S.H.O., Police Station Chenari, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P.Mines Ms. Kalpana, Advocate ======================================================

¶13

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA

¶14

ORAL ORDER

¶15

4 05-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Mines Department.

¶16

This writ application has been filed by the

¶17

petitioner challenging the E-challan dated 20.03.2025 issued by the District Mining Officer, Sasaram, Treasury-Sasaram by which a penalty of Rs.9,09,850/- has been imposed on the petitioner on account of overloading of his truck bearing Registration No. UP67AT1637, Engine No. ISB5.

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.6217 of 2025(4) dt.05-08-2025 2/4

¶19

9B4S180T181D636864 and Chasis No. MAT541109J1D12621, which was seized on account of overloading.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the letter dated 23.02.2025 which has been issued by the Mining Inspector, Rohtas to the S.H.O., Chenari, P.S. It is manifest that the truck in question was seized on account of overloading. In paragraph no.14 of the counter affidavit filed by the Mines Department also, it has been admitted that the truck in question was seized on account of being overloaded.

¶21

From the perusal of the letter dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-P/4) issued by the Mines Inspector, Rohtas, it is clear that the imposition of penalty has been done in terms of Rule56(2) as amended of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation of the penalty is wrong and as per the amended Rule-56(2) of Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019, if proper calculation had been made for overloading then such a huge amount of penalty could not have been imposed.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Mines Department admits to the fact that the truck in question was

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.6217 of 2025(4) dt.05-08-2025 3/4

¶25

seized because of being overloaded. Learned counsel for the Mining Department further submits that the matter may be remanded back to the District Mining Officer, Sasaram for a fresh calculation of penalty in terms of the amended Rule-56(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019.

¶26

For the reasons as stated and particularly taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Mines Department as well as for the petitioner, the impugned order dated 20.03.2025 (Annexure-P/4) by which a penalty of Rs.9,09,850/- has been imposed on the petitioner is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the District Mining Officer, Sasaram (Respondent No.3) to calculate the penalty amount afresh in light of the amended Rule-56(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019. The fresh calculation of penalty must be carried out within 15 days from the date of this order and the petitioner undertakes to deposit the penalty calculated afresh further within a period of 15 days. The moment the petitioner deposits the a fresh calculated penalty amount, within one week thereafter, the seized vehicle should be released in favour of the petitioner.

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.6217 of 2025(4) dt.05-08-2025 4/4

¶28

With the aforesaid observation and direction the present writ application stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. All pending I.As, if any shall be deemed to have been disposed of.

¶29

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶30

Prakash Narayan U

Surendra Singh v. The Additional Chief Secretary (Acs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. The Additional Chief Secretary (Acs)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Jain Vs The State of Bihar

Yogendra Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Mashala Mil Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Surat Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Siyaram Singh Vs The State of Bihar through The Addtional Chief Secretary (Acs)