1. Shobha Kant Ray @ Shobha Kant @ Shobha Kant Rai, aged about 43 v. 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of
Case Details
1 W.P. (Cr.) No.902 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 902 of 2023 1. Shobha Kant Ray @ Shobha Kant @ Shobha Kant Rai, aged about 43 years, s/o Ganeshi Ray, r/o Ward No. 14, Dhepura, P.O. & P.S. Dalsingh Sarai, Dist.- Samastipur (Bihar) 2. Pawon Kumar Singh @ Pawan Singh @ Pawan Kumar Singh, aged about 64 years, s/o Jivan Singh, r/o Sarsai, Ishtmarar Milik, P.O. & P.S.- Sarsai, Dist.- Purnia (Bihar) .... Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Dhurwa, Dist.- Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, Dist.- Ranchi 3. The District Magistrate cum the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Sahibganj 4. The Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Sahibganj 5. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, P.O., P.S. & Dist.- Sahibganj 6. The Officer-in-Charge, Mirzachowki Police Station, P.O. & P.S.- Mirzachowki, Dist.- Sahibganj …. Respondents P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State : Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, Advocate : Ms. Kabisha Goenka, Advocate : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I : Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-I ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2 W.P. (Cr.) No.902 of 2023 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the order dated 03.10.2023, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Sahibganj in Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 by which it rejected the prayer for release of the trucks bearing registration no. BR-01GC- 8354 of the petitioner no.1 and the truck bearing registration no.BR-11GC-8551 belonging to the petitioner no.2 on the ground that the Confiscation Case No.111 of 2022-23 has been going on in respect of the said vehicles. The petitioners has made further prayer for quashing the order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 111/2022-23 passed by the learned District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj whereby and where under the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj has confiscated the said two vehicles along with other vehicles and directed the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj for auction sale of the said confiscated vehicles and to deposit the money with the nazarat. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the informant of Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 being the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj conducted a raid on 26.12.2022 of the vehicles loaded with stone chips but the drivers could not produce the transport challan of the said stone chips loaded in the vehicles from which it appeared to the informant that the stone chips are transported illegally and the vehicles also appeared to be overloaded. 4. On the basis of the written report, police registered Mirzachowki P.S. Case No.109 of 2022 alleging commission of offence under Sections 175, 379, 414 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 21 3 W.P. (Cr.) No.902 of 2023 (A)/21 (6)/22 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Section 4/54 of JMM Act and Rule 7/9 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. 5. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 21 (4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 which reads as under:-
Decision
“21. (4-A) Any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under sub-section (4), shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court” (emphasis supplied) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the law is well settled that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing seized under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the said Act. Hence, it is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to pass any confiscation order in respect of the said vehicles, in the absence of any order, of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the Judgments of this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 941 of 2023 dated 28.11.2023 in the case of Manoranjan Rooj vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. and W.P. (Cr.) No. 808 of 2023 dated 29.11.2023 in the case of Rajendra Prasad vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. 4 W.P. (Cr.) No.902 of 2023 7. The learned SC (L&C) –I submits that under Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 which reads as under:- “11. Search, Seizure and Confiscation:- (v) Any minerals, tool, equipment, vehicle or anything seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and shall be disposed of in accordance with direction of such court. Envisages that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or anything seized shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court of the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district and shall be disposed of in accordance with the direction of such court and the order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Confiscation Case No. 111/2022-23 in accordance with the powers vested upon it under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that plain reading of Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 makes it abundantly clear that inter-alia any vehicle seized under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can only be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance and the Act envisages that the same shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. 5 W.P. (Cr.) No.902 of 2023 9. So far as the contention of the learned SC (L&C) –I regarding the Rule 11 (v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is concerned, the said rule has been framed in exercise of the powers vested under Section 23 of the parent act being Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 10. It is a settled principle of law that if there a conflict between a rule framed in exercise of a provision in the parent statute and the provision of the parent statue itself, the provisions of the parent statute shall prevail. 11. Section 21(4-A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, as already indicated above, in no uncertain manner envisages that inter-alia the vehicles seized under Section 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 can be confiscated by an order or direction of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 12. The undisputed facts remains that no such court competent to take cognizance of the offence has passed any order or direction for confiscation and the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj is not the court competent to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj has committed an illegality by passing the confiscation order in respect of the vehicles bearing 6 W.P. (Cr.) No.902 of 2023 registration no. BR-01GC-8354 and registration no.BR-11GC-8551 in the absence of any order or direction of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence. Hence, this is a fit case where a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing the order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 111/2022-23 passed by District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. 14. Accordingly, issue a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.08.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 111/2022-23 passed by District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj. 15. So far as the order dated 03.10.2023, passed by the S.D.J.M., Sahibganj in Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 is concerned, the learned S.D.J.M., Sahibganj has rejected the prayer for release of the vehicles only on the ground that Confiscation Case No. 111/2022-23 has been going on but as the same has been quashed, hence, the order dated 03.10.2023, passed by the S.D.J.M., Sahibganj in Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 is also quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the court of S.D.J.M., Sahibganj to pass a fresh order in the application filed by the petitioners for release of the said two vehicles. Order accordingly. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in the above terms. 16. 17. 18. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th December, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)