The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-May-2025 15:05:03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C). NO.9787 OF 2025 Sradhanjali Jena …. Mr. Sukanta Kumar Dalai, Advocate Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD Order No.
Decision
ORDER 13.05.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court, with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue notice to the Opposite Parties and call for records and upon hearing them to quash the illegal seizure dtd.6.2.2025 by the Tahasildar under Annexure-2 and penalty thereupon by the Mining Officer under Annexure-3 declaring the same as illegal arbitrary mala fide, without authority and contrary to the Rule 51 of the Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2016 and further be pleased to direct in the nature of writ of mandamus to Opposite Parties more especially to the Tahsildar, Salipur to release the vehicle in question with adequate compensation forthwith to secure ends of justice. And pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deemed fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. The Opposite Parties, having been served with the Court process, are represented by learned Additional Standing Counsel, who opposes the petition making submission in justification of impugned proceedings. He contends that the impugned seizure of Page 1 of 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-May-2025 15:05:03 vehicle is made by the competent authority in terms of certain guidelines promulgated by Government Notification dated 25th October, 2024 and, therefore, it cannot be faltered. He has also placed a copy of the Odisha Gazette Notification under which, a Committee appears to have been constituted and in the said Committee, according to him, the Tahasildar figures as one of the members. He further submits that the Tahasildar having acted on behalf of the Committee has seized the vehicle and it is perfectly in accordance with law. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition paper, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: (a) Mr. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the vehicle being his client’s property cannot be touched except in accordance with law because of the guarantee constitutionally enacted under Article 300 (A). This secures support from the text of Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 51 of Orissa Minor Minerals Concession Rules 2016 (for brevity ‘the Rules’), in a way. For ease of reference, the said Sub-Rule is reproduced hereunder: “(2) Whenever any person trespasses into any land in contravention of the provisions of these rules, such trespasser may be served with an order of eviction by the Tahasildar or Sub-Collector or Collector or Deputy Director or Mining Officer or Assistant Mining Officer or Divisional Forest Officer or Assistant Conservator of Forest or Range Officer within their respective jurisdiction and 50 such Government Officer, if necessary, may obtain the help of the police to evict the trespassers from the land.” Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-May-2025 15:05:03 Learned counsel for the Petitioner is right in telling us that the above Sub-Rule enlists certain officers, who have been given power to seize vehicles obviously being used for mining purposes, and that in the said list Tahasildar is missing conspicuously. Therefore, the person, who seized the vehicle being the Tahasildar, his action is absolutely unauthorized and it violates the pith & substance of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India, as expansively construed by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. (b) The vehement submission of Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel, that the Government by the subject Notification has constituted a Committee, which inter alia would comprise of Tahasildar and that Committee has exercised the power of seizure, is difficult to agree with. Seizure document do not reflect this even remotely. Power of seizure of property, be it movable or immovable, is treated as a serious breach in any civilized jurisdiction, more particularly, when constitutional guarantee is given to the private property of persons. Despite asking, Mr. Sahoo is not in a position to tell us how this Committee could exercise the power of seizure when authorities are designated in Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 51 of the subject Rules. (c) The last contention of Mr. Sahoo that the Petitioner had made an application seeking compounding of offence and therefore, in that connection, certain things might have been accomplished is again difficult to Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-May-2025 15:05:03 agree with for the simple reason that the said application is said to have been made orally. This amazes us. The Petitioner vehemently denies said submission. Compounding of offence/breach is again a serious matter inasmuch as it may sprinkle stigmatic elements on the parties concerned. Even otherwise, such request for compounding cannot be made orally unless the law otherwise provides for; no such law is pleaded before us. (d) The vehement submission of Mr. Dalai, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the seizure and retention of private property of the citizen being a gross violation of Article 300 (A) of the Constitution of India, the violator should be asked to compensate the private owner, is bit difficult to examine in the limited writ jurisdiction. Therefore, in that regard, liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings like suit or otherwise in the light of Apex Court decision in Dhulabhai and others -v- State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78. It hardly needs to be stated that most of the reliefs which writ Courts can grant can be granted by the ordinary Civil Courts in appropriately constituted proceedings. This the Petitioner may explore. In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 6 February, 2025 at Annexure-2 is quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. Further, a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Opposite Party No.8 to immediately release the subject vehicle to the Petitioner on production of the RC. Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-May-2025 15:05:03 The observations hereinabove made shall not come in the way of jurisdictional authorities taking appropriate action against the Petitioner, if there is any violation of law. Costs reluctantly made easy. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Rojalin (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Page 5 of 5