W.P. (Cr.) No.448 of 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 448 of 2024 Bibhuti Kumar Sinha, aged about 47 years, son of late Sant Kumar Sinha, resident of Purna Nagar Road, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, Dist.-Koderma .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, Dist.- Koderma 3. District Mining Officer, Koderma, P.O. & P.S.-Koderma, Dist.- Koderma …. Respondents P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Pankaj Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to AG : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, AG ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order for quashing the order dated 03.11.2023 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 whereby and where under, four trucks of the petitioner which were allegedly W.P. (Cr.) No.448 of 2024 2 involved in transportation of stone chips illegally were confiscated by the respondent no.2 in exercise of the provision of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017. 3. The brief fact of the case is that on the basis of the written report submitted by the respondent no.3-District Mining Officer, Koderma, Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 was registered involving the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code as well as Rule 9 and 13 of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 and Rule 54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2004 against seven accused persons including the petitioner on the allegation that the said four trucks of the petitioner which were parked near a petrol pump were found loaded with illegally extracted stone chips. 4. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma for release of the said vehicles which was allowed but instead of releasing the said vehicles, on the basis of the written report of the respondent no.3, Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 was instituted by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma under the purported exercise of the power vested upon the respondent no.2 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that vide the impugned order in exercise of the power under Rule 11 (v) of the W.P. (Cr.) No.448 of 2024 3 said of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, the respondent no.2 allowed the said Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 and directed confiscation of the four trucks of the petitioner mentioned in the said order. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has got no jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 11 (v) of the said Rules and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in W.P. (Cr.) No. 941 of 2023 in the case of Manoranjan Rooj vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. dated 28.11.2023. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 6788 of 2023 and allied cases dated 22.07.2024 wherein, it has been categorically held by the Division Bench of this Court that it is only the court taking cognizance who is confiscating authority under the said Act and Rules and the Deputy Commissioner of any District has got no power to initiate and decide the confiscation proceeding, as the power vested upon the Deputy Commissioner of Rule 11 (v) of the said Rule is in conflict with the parent Act. Thus Rule 11 (v) of the of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 is ultra vires to the parent Act; the impugned order is not sustainable in law. W.P. (Cr.) No.448 of 2024 4 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 by the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, it has been categorically mentioned that the said order of confiscation has been passed in exercise of the power vested upon the respondent no.2 under Rule 11 (v) of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017. As already indicated above, the said Rule 11 (v) of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 has been held ultra vires to the parent Act i.e. Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957, as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) No.6788 of 2023 in the case of M/s. Aditya Enterprises & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. along with allied cases dated 22.07.2024. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 having been passed in exercise of the power under Rule 11 (v) of Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, which has already been declared ultra vires, the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 is without any jurisdiction, hence, is not sustainable in law. W.P. (Cr.) No.448 of 2024 5 7. W.P. (Cr.) No.448 of 2024 5 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 80 of 2023 in connection with Koderma P.S. Case No. 158 of 2023 is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 15th January, 2025 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-