Disposed¶26

Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC9 Jan 2025CWJC/8217/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Release of seized tractor; Mahindra Tractor Regn. BR02GB-3817; Magadh University P.S. Case No.10/2004; illegal mining/minerals transportation; Rule 56(2) compounding amount; District Mining Officer, Gaya; MMDR Act, 1957; (CPIMTS) Rules, 2019; BM (CPIMTS) Rule, 2021; S.15 Environment (Protection) Act, 1986; mandamus; vehicle release after penalty deposit; Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav v. State of Bihar; Patna High Court CWJC No.8217 of 2024; decided 09-01-2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ application disposed of; petitioner directed to pay the compounding amount as fixed by respondent No.5 (District Mining Officer, Gaya), and respondent No.5 directed to release the petitioner's tractor upon such deposit. ¶26

Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Mining and Natural Resources | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to release of his Mahindra Tractor (Regn. BR02GB-3817) seized in Magadh University P.S. Case No. 10/2004 and lying at the police station, by way of mandamus, on furnishing sufficient penalty. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

If the petitioner deposits the compounding amount as fixed by respondent No.5, respondent No.5 is directed to release the petitioner's vehicle.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

In view of the petitioner's readiness to pay the compounding amount, the writ application is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach respondent No.5 (District Mining Officer, Gaya) expressing readiness to pay the compounding amount in accordance with Rule.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court, Rajesh Kumar Verma, J (oral order dated 09-01-2025), CWJC No.8217 of 2024: Petitioner, claiming ownership of a Mahindra Tractor (Regn. BR02GB-3817) seized in Magadh University P.S. Case No.10/2004 - registered under sections 379, 506 IPC (printed 'LPC'), the MMDR Act, 1957 (printed 'S4(1)(AL 21 MDR. Act'), 11/18 (CPIMTS) Rules, 2019, S.56(4) BM (CPIMTS) Rule, 2021 and S.15 Environment Protection Act, 1986 - and lying at the police station subject to natural decay, sought mandamus for its release on furnishing sufficient penalty. A counter affidavit of respondent No.2 (Mines Department) indicated that the compounding amount could be deposited under Rule 56(2) of the Mines Rule, and the petitioner undertook to pay the amount as fixed by respondent No.5. The court disposed of the application, directing the petitioner to approach respondent No.5 (District Mining Officer, Gaya) and, on deposit of the compounding amount so fixed, directing respondent No.5 to release the vehicle. The quantum of the compounding amount is not stated in the judgment; the District Mining Officer was impleaded as respondent No.5 during the day's proceedings.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8217 of 2024

¶2

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

¶3

Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav S/o Bhola Yadav resident of village Mokari Haridaspur, P.S.- Magadh University, District- Gaya

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar thropugh the Principal Secretary, Mining Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The District Magistrate, Gaya,

¶8

The Superintendent of Police Gaya.

¶9

The Officer in charge, Magadh University, Police Station, Goya.

¶10

The District Mining Officer, Gaya, Dist. - Gaya.

¶11

... ... Respondent/s

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel 25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶14

2 09-01-2025

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to

¶16

implead the District Mining Officer, Gaya as party respondent No.5 in course of the day.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Mines Department and learned counsel for the State.

¶18

The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶19

(i) To issue an appropriate order/s, direction/s including a writ preferably in nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to release the Mahindra Tractor bearing

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.8217 of 2024(2) dt.09-01-2025 2/3

¶21

Registration NO. BR02GB-3817, Chassis NO MBNABAVGAJRH02061 Engine No.RJH4YBA4625 in favour of the petitioner who is owner of the said Tractor seized in Magadh University P.S. Case No. 10/2004 registered under sections 379, 506 of LPC & S4(1)(AL 21 MDR. Act, 1957 & 11/18 (CPIMTS) Ruile 2019 and S. 56 (4) BM (CPIMTS) Rule 2021 & S. 15 Environment Protection Act, 1986 lying in the premises of Police station and subject to natural decay by furnishing sufficient penalty to the satisfaction of leamed District Magistrate, Gaya.

¶22

(ii) Any other relief's to which the petitioner is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 (Mines Department) that the petitioner may deposit the compounding amount before the authority concerned under Rule 56(2) of the Mines Rule he has also annexed the compounding amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner outrightly submits that the petitioner is ready to pay the compounding amount to the authority concerned under Rule 56(2) of the Mines Rule as fixed by the respondent No.5 in accordance with Rule.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid, this writ application

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.8217 of 2024(2) dt.09-01-2025 3/3

¶26

stands disposed of with direction to the petitioner to approach the respondent No.5 and requesting him that he is ready to pay the compounding amount in accordance with Rule and if the petitioner deposits the compounding amount as fixed by the respondent No.5, the respondent No.5 is directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner.

¶27

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶28

Nitesh/-

¶29

Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar @ Manish Yadav v. The State of Bihar

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

Abhay Kumar Singh @ Abhay Kumar @ Virapan Vs The State of Bihar

Bhuri Devi @ Sangita Devi @ Sanjeeta Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Jatashankar Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Harendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dinesh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

M/S Binod Furniture and Timber Works Vs The State of Bihar