2025:JHHC:12847 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 1074 of 2023 Dhiraj Yadav, son of Singhashan Yadav, resident of village Imrti Colony, P.O and P.S. Robertsganj, District- Sonebhadra (UP) … Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa 3. The Superintendent of Police, Garhwa. ... Respondents. ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Aditya Raman, AC to GA-III ------- 09/29.04.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief(s):- (a) For quashing the part of the order dated 14.9.2021 passed by the Court of Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Garhwa in Confiscation Case No. 18/2020-21 arising out of Ketar P.S. Case No. 48 of 2020 registered under Section 379, 411, 420, 120/34 IPC, Rule 54 of the JMMC(AR) and Section 21 of the MMDR Act, whereby and the petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs.5,00,000/- in order to release the truck bearing registration No. UP 64AT 2982. (b) For release of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited by the petitioner for release of vehicle in Najarat through demand draft No. 005536 dated 13.12.2021, since the same has been seized and confiscated illegally against the principle of natural justice, admittedly this petitioner was not present at place of occurrence nor any illegal sand has been recovered from his vehicle even than the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized in this case. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that his vehicle was confiscated in Confiscation Case No. 18/2020-21. In the said confiscation proceeding, the vehicle was released with a condition to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- before Najarat. It is his contention that the impugned order of depositing of Rs.5,00,000/- is absolutely bad as the Deputy Commissioner has got no jurisdiction. He further submits that now the entire confiscation case is without jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner is not an appropriate authority to confiscate the vehicle under the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rules, 2017. 4. Learned counsel for the State admits that Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rules, 2017 has been declared ultra vires by this Court in WP(C) No. 6788 of 2023. 5. Admittedly, the confiscation proceeding was in terms of Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transpiration and Storage) Rules, 2017. The aforesaid provision has been declared ultra vires by this Court in WP(C) No. 6788 of 2023. 6. Since the provision of law under which, confiscation was done has been declared ultra vires, the entire confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 18/2020-21 before the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Garhwa is set aside. All consequential orders are also set aside. 7. The amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (five lakh) which has been deposited by the petitioner, should be refunded to the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. Anu/-Cp3. (ANANDA SEN, J.)