Md. Rafiqul Islam … v. 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj 3.The District Transport Officer, Sahebganj
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 1183 of 2023 Md. Rafiqul Islam …… Petitioner Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj 3.The District Transport Officer, Sahebganj 4. The District Mining Officer, Sahebganj 5. The Circle Officer, Patna Anchal Office, Patna, District-Sahebganj Respondents …… --------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State --------- : Mr. Manoj Prasad, Advocate : Mr. Deepankar Roy, A.C. to G.A.-III 05/Dated: 15/07/2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the respondent-State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj in connection with Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2023. 3. The FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint submitted by the Circle Officer against the illegal extraction of stone during a surprise raid conducted on 28.11.2022. 4. Mr. Manoj Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner has been pleased to direct to confiscate the Trucks bearing Registration No. JH18D-5460 and JH18E-3608 by the impugned order and also ordered for auction sale of the said vehicles. He further submits that however, till date auction sale has not taken place. He submits that the said order is without jurisdiction. According to him the said vehicles were seized arising out of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act. He submits that two vehicles that have been seized are Trucks bearing Registration No. JH18D-5460 and JH18E-3608 and the petitioner has valid registration cards for the said vehicles and the said vehicles are 1 duly insured and the vehicles are goods carrying vehicles. He submits that during pendency of the case the said vehicles were released and subsequently confiscation order has been passed. He further submits that the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29.08.2023 has ordered for confiscation of the trucks of the petitioner and further ordered for auction sale of the said vehicles along with articles. He refers to Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and submits that seized vehicle shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the competent court to take cognizance. He further refers Section 22 of the said Act, 1957 and submits that in view of that, the cognizance can be taken on a complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf. He submits that this is lacking in the case in hand. According to him if the said Act is involved, only special court can proceed with the matter. He further refers to Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 and submits that the constitution of Special Courts are provided therein. He submits that Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power. He further submits that in view of the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the same was incorporated in Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 by virtue of Rule-13 thereof and, therefore, an appropriate order can be passed by this court. He further submits that there is no bar in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for releasing the vehicles and the minerals in the Statute, however, in the other Statute i.e. the Indian Forest Act, there is direct bar under Section 52(c) of the said Act. On these grounds, He submits that the impugned order by which the trucks of the petitioners have been directed to be confiscated and thereafter auctioned is without jurisdiction and this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can pass an order even the alternative remedy is there. 5. Per contra, Mr. Deepankar Roy, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner is having alternative remedy. He submits that in view of Rule 11 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and 2 Storage) Rules, 2017, the officers are authorised to stop, check, search and verify at any vehicles carrying the minerals from the mine. He submits that the competent authority has seized the vehicles in question under Rule 11 of the said Rules, 2017. He submits that there is provision of an appeal in view of Rule 14 of the said Rules, 2017 and Rule 15 of the said Rules speaks of revision. He submits that if the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order, the petitioner can prefer revision before the competent authority in view of Rule 15 of the said Rules, 2017. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and the learned court has rightly passed the order. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned order and finds that admittedly Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 175/379/414 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 21 (A)/21(6)/22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, 04/54 of Jharkhand Minor & Mineral Concession Rule and under Section 7/9 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. In view of said Act, 1957, only complaint can be entertained, whereas, an FIR was registered. The said cognizance order is not under challenge in this petition and the petitioner is ready to face the trial in view of non-challenge of the proceeding before the learned court. 7. Sub-section (4-A) of Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is quoted hereinbelow:
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.] “ 8. Looking into the above provision, it is crystal clear that any mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle can be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance. 9. Section 22 of the said Act speaks of cognizance of offence, which is quoted 3 hereinbelow: “22. No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made thereunder except upon complaint in writing made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government.” 10. Looking into the above provision, it appears that the cognizance can be taken only on the complaint. 11. Further, Section 30-B of the said Act, 1957 speaks of constitution of Special Courts and Section 30-C of the said Act, 1957 speaks of Special Courts' power. 12. Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is amended by Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which is quoted hereinbelow: ” ^^;fn fdlh okgu dk dksbZ pkyd y?kq [kfut dks ifjogu djrs le; l{ke inkf/kdkjh vFkok funs'kd] [kku vFkok vij funs'kd] [kku vFkok mi funs'kd] [kku vFkok ftyk@lgk;d [kuu inkf/kdkjh vFkok lekgrkZ vFkok lekgrkZ ;k jkT; ljdkj n~okjk izkf/kd`r fdlh inkf/kdkjh dks izi= ^,e* vFkok >kj[k.M [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds vUrxZr QkeZ Mh esa ifjogu pkyku fn[kkus esa vlQy jgrk gS vFkok fujh{k.k ls bUdkj djrk gS] rks mls vf/kdre 01 o’kZ dh dSn vFkok [kfut ewY; dh nksxquh jkf'k ds cjkcj n.M vFkok nksuksa ,d lkFk n.M fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk nwljh ,oa rhljh ckj oS/k ifjogu pkyku izLrqr ugha fd, tkus ij mijksDr ds vfrfjDr n.M dh jkf'k Øe'k% 50]000-00 ¼ipkl gtkj :i;s ,oa 1]00]000@ ¼,d yk[k½ :i;s gksxhA tk¡p djus okys inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogu djrs ik;s tkus ij okgu dks [kfut lfgr tIr fd;k tk,xk rFkk ftls fdlh ljdkjh izfr"Bku esa vFkok LFkkfu; Fkkuk izkax.k esa lqjf{kr j[kk tk,xkA l{ke inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogudrkZ ds mijksDr n.M 'kqYd ,oa bl vk'k; dk ca/k i= ¼Bond Paper½ lefiZr fd, tkus ij fd U;k;ky; n~okjk uksfVl fn, tkus ij mifLFkr gksaxs] okgu dks [kfut lfgr NksM+k tk ldrk gS] ijUrq voS/k ifjogudrkZ ij fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ gsrq bldh lwpuk U;k;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh dks nh tk,xhA ca/k i= dk izi= funs'kd] [kku n~okjk vyx ls ifjpkfyr fd;k tk,xkA 13. In view of the above facts, it is clear that the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj is not in accordance with law. If a particular Act is there and certain procedure are prescribed therein, the same is required to be followed, which is lacking in the case in hand. 14. In view of the above facts, the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj in connection with Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2023, is set aside. 4 15. On perusal of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, it transpires that the minerals can be released on payment of double amount of the cost of the minerals, to be deposited before the competent authority. However in the case in hand, the petitioner is not claiming the seized material. 16. So far as the release of the vehicles is concerned, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall furnish indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the learned court. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District- Sahebganj (Jharkhand). (iii) The petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicles on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicles in any manner. (v) He shall produce the vehicles as and when directed by the learned trial court. 17. The aforesaid conditions are the subject to the final result of the criminal proceeding, which is pending before the learned concerned court in connection with Ranga P.S. Case No. 109 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 522 of 2023. 18. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in above terms and disposed of. Satyarthi/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) 5