2025:JHHC:28192-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4388 of 2025 Shivnarayan Saw, aged 59 years, Son of Matlu Saw, resident of Kundi P.O.-Saradhu, P.S.- Tandwa, District- Chatra … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Magistrate, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District- Latehar. 3. Superintendent of Police, Latehar, P.O., P.S. and District- Latehar 4. District Mining Officer, Latehar P.O., P.S. and District-Latehar … Respondents ---------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ayush Kumar Verma Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, A.A.G.-IA : Ms. Omiya Anusha, A.C. to A.A.G.-IA --------- Order No.05/ Dated 11th September, 2025 Prayer: 1. The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed against the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No. 03 of 2023 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 161/2022 registered for the offences under Sections 379, 411 of the IPC, Section 30(ii) of the Coals Mines Act, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act and Section 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining) Transportation and Storage Rules 2017, whereby and whereunder, 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 2 the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. JH13E3193, has been confiscated in exercise of power conferred under Rule 11(v) which has been declared ultra vires by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Factual Matrix: 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition required to enumerate, reads as under:- Petitioner is the owner of loader bearing registration no. JH13E319. On 28.08.2022 at around 01:30am during inspection and raid 03 trucks bearing illegal coal was caught and on further interrogation the driver of the trucks disclosed that the coal was loaded in the truck by the loader no. 09. Accordingly, the vehicles were seized and the case was instituted under Section 379, 411 of the I.P.C. Section 30(ii) of Coals Mines Act, Section 21 of Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act and Section 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining) Transportation and Storage Rule, 2017. On 17.12.2022 and 24.1.2023 letters were issued by Superintendent of Police Latehar to the Deputy Commissioner-Cum- District Magistrate, Latehar with regard to the seized vehicle of the petitioner in connection with aforesaid Balumath P.S. Case No. 161 of 2022 with a proposal for initiating confiscation proceeding on it under Jharkhand Minerals Rules, 2017. 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 3 On consideration of a letters dated 17.12.2022 and 24.01.223 sent by S.P. to Deputy Commissioner, he initiated confiscation proceedings for the confiscation of petitioner’s vehicle vide confiscation no. 03 of 2023. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate passed an order for confiscation of petitioner’s vehicle and directed the auction to be held within 08 weeks vide order dated 28.03.2023, even when as per the Central Act only the court taking cognizance can pass an order for confiscation and not respondent no. 02. The order of confiscation against the seized vehicle in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No. 161 of 2022 vide order dated 28.03.2023 which was registered as Confiscation Case No. 03 of 2023 alleging that the said vehicle was used for transport of illegal coal is as such bad in law.” Submission on behalf of the Petitioner: 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order impugned dated 28.03.2023 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar is under challenge whereby and whereunder, the vehicle has been confiscated in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017. 4. Submission has been made that the Provision of 11(v) wherein the power of confiscation has been provided, has already been declared 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 4 ultra vires by the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023. 5. The ground, therefore, has been taken that the moment, the jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner has been said to be not available in view of holding the provision of 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 to be ultra vires under which provision the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Magistrate has invoked the jurisdiction in confiscating the vehicle and as such, the said order will be said to be in nullity in the eye of law. Submission on behalf of the Respondent: 6. Mr. Jai Prakash, learned A.A.G.-IA appearing for the State has submitted that the impugned order has been passed prior to passing of the judgment by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023, however, he has agreed by making submission that the moment the provision has been held to be ultra vires, then the legal parlance could be that there was no provision in statute book. Analysis: 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. This Court has gone through the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023, wherefrom it is evident that the provision 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 5 Rules 2017 has held to be ultra vires as has been referred in paragraph-30 thereof, for ready reference, Paragraph-30-33 being referred herein, which read as under: “30. Thus, the delegated legislation, i.e., the Rules herein, so far as nominating the Deputy Commissioner of each of the districts as confiscating authority, has travelled beyond the delegation of the parent Act. This legislation, i.e., the Rules, so far as this particular provision is concerned is inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act and is an excessive delegation. Thus, considering the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as cited above, on the point of ultra vires, and in view of the principle of occupied field, we are of the opinion that Rule 11(v) of the Rules is ultra vires the Act and cannot stand the test of consistency with the parent Act. Thus, Rule 11(v) of the Rules, so far as it gives power to the Deputy Commissioner of each district to be the Confiscating Authority, is held to be ultra vires the parent Act and the Constitution and is thus, struck down. 31. So far as the prayer to strike down Rule 11(1) of the Rules is concerned, we find that the said Rule only classifies the authorities and their jurisdiction of operation for the purpose of search and seizure. They are not the authorities to confiscate. So far as search and seizure is concerned, in terms of Section 21 of the parent Act, power has been given to an Officer or authority or authorized authority, specially empowered on this behalf, which is evident from Section 21(3) and 21(4) of the parent Act. The parent Act does not specify as to who would be those authority. Since the parent Act does not envisage or specify any particular authority, we hold that there is no inconsistency with the parent Act so far as Rule 11(1) nominating the authorized officer is concerned. 32. Similarly, the authority to seize have also not been prescribed under the Act. Thus, the Officer nominated under Rule 11(1) of the Rules is empowered to search and seize tools, equipments, vehicles, but the confiscation proceeding is to be initiated and concluded by the Court, who is empowered to take cognizance, 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 6 i.e., the Special Court or the Judicial Magistrate First Class as provided in the parent Act. 33. As we have already declared the Rule 11(v) as ultra vires, any confiscation proceeding by the Deputy Commissioner of any district within the State of Jharkhand under the Rules is illegal and is without any authority of law and is beyond jurisdiction. Similarly, in these cases, initiation of proceeding being Confiscation Case No.10 of 2022-23 for confiscation of Vehicle bearing Registration No. JH 10CG 4140 along with 800 cft. of 5/8” stone chips [petitioner No.1 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023]; Vehicle No. JH 10CH 6777 along with 800 cft. 5/8” stone chips [petitioner No.2 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023]; JH 04X 8461 along with 800 cft. of 5/8” stone chips of [petitioner No.3 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023]; BR 10GB 8276, JH 15V 7205 and JH 04X 2825 [petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 7531 of 2023] is hereby held to be without any authority of law and is accordingly quashed and set aside, with the liberty to proceed for confiscation before the Court having power to take cognizance of the offence. SUMMARISED CONCLUSION (i) Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is a delegated legislation and cannot travel beyond the power delegated by the parent Act, i.e., the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957. (ii) The phrase “court taking cognizance” is the Special Court constituted in terms of Section 30-B of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act and where there is no such Special Court constituted, it will be the Judicial Magistrate First Class. (iii) It is only the “court taking cognizance”, who is the “confiscating authority” under the Act and the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner of each District has got no power to initiate and decide a confiscation proceeding, as the same is in conflict with the parent Act, thus, Rule 11(V) is ultra vires to the parent Act. 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 7 (iv) “Confiscation” under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act and the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 are same and cannot be differentiated. “Confiscation” prescribed under the Rules cannot be read independently and the Rules does not give any independent power to any authority to confiscate. (v) Rule 11(1) only nominates and identifies the authority authorized or authority authorized referred under Section 21(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act. (vi) The authority, to seize the minerals and other materials, tools including vehicles, is the authority prescribed under Rule 11(1) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017.” 9. The statutory provision under which the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No. 03 of 2023 since has been passed in view of the provision 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 which itself has been declared ultra vires and as such, even though the impugned order has been passed prior to the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner will be said to be not available after holding the provision of 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 to be ultra vires. 10. 10. Considering the aforesaid judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 22.07.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023, 2025:JHHC:28192-DB 8 this writ petition is hereby allowed and the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2023 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-Cum- District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No. 03 of 2023 in exercise of power conferred under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2017 is quashed and set aside. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 12. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Date: 11th September, 2025 Suman/Simran- A.F.R.