1 2025:CGHC:15323 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1647 of 2025 1 - Santosh Kumar Nishad S/o Ramkrishna Nishad Aged About 44 Years Resident Of Village- Khamari, Tahsil- Patan, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector (Food Branch), District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 2 - The Assistant Mining Officer District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 3 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Charama, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 4 - The Station House Officer Police Station- Charama, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) 5 - The Collector District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Itu Rani Mukherjee, Advocate For State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General and Shri Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Digitally signed by GOPAL SINGH Date: 2025.04.28 11:35:32 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 01/04/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 7.10.2024 his vehicle bearing registration No.CG 04 LY 8853 along with section pump, 20 drums, 1 football pipe, 10 pipes, 2 gas stoves and 1 gas cylinder have been confiscated by respondent No.2/The Assistant Mining OfÏcer, as such the petitioner is challenging the order of confiscation. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, due procedure has not been followed and the order of confiscation has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has directly approached before this Court and he has not availed the alternative remedy available under Chapter 14 Rule 77 of the Minor Mineral Rules, 2015, as such the petitioner should have approached before the concerned appellate authority/Director, Geology to which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach before the concerned authority while filing an appeal against the impugned order. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that alternative remedy is available, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw this petition granting liberty to approach before the concerned appellate authority. 3 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty in favour of the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE Gopal Singh