Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3177 of 2023 --------- M/s Jai Bajrangwalee Stone Works, Sahibganj through its authorized representative namely Roushan Kumar Yadav ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mining, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. District Magistrate-cum Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj 4. District Mining Officer, Sahibganj ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 1931 of 2020 --------- M/s Godavari Commodities Limited, Kolkata, through its Authorized Signatory Jai Bhagwan Yadav, Ramgarh (Jharkhand) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Dstrict Magistrate, Ramgarh 3. District Mining Officer, Ramgarh 4. Central Coalfields Limited, through its Chairman cum Managing Director, Darbhanga House, Ranchi ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2021 --------- Janardan Yadav, S/o Satyadev Yadav, Durgapur, West Bengal ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 3. The District Mining Officer, Jamtara 4. The Superintendent of Police, Jamtara 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Narayanpur, Jamtara ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 2514 of 2023 --------- 1. Jata Shankar Jha, S/o Narayan G. Jha, Barwadda, District Dhanbad 2. Om Prakash Choudhary, S/o Mahendra Pratap Choudhary, Sitarampur, District Bardhman (West Bengal) ... … Petitioners Versus Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -2- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Jasidih, Deoghar 3. The District Mining Officer, Jasidih, Deoghar 4. The Superintendent of Police, Jasidih, Deoghar 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Jasidih, Deoghar ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 2818 of 2023 --------- Binod Rastogi, S/o Bhagwan Rastogi, R/o Ward No. 7, Nagar Panchayat, Bkhri, Begusarai, District-Begusarai (Bihar) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. The District Mining Officer, Deoghar 4. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Jasidih, Deoghar ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 3276 of 2023 --------- Jitendra Singh, S/o Bhairo Singh, Jamui (Bihar) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 3. The District Mining Officer, Deoghar 4. The Superintendent of Police, Deoghar 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Kunda, Deoghar ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 3441 of 2023 --------- 1. Sarfaraz Ahmad, S/o Ghulam Moinuddin Ahmad 2. Shaheena Parween, W/o Sarfaraz Ahmad ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Mines Commissioner, Doranda Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar 4. The District Mining Officer, Latehar ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 3776 of 2023 --------- 1. A. Mala Devi 2. B. Ashish Kumar Bhagat ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -3- 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda 3. The District Mining Officer, Godda 4. The Superintendent of Police, Godda 5. The Officer-in-Charge, Godda Town, Godda ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2023 --------- Prahlad Yadav @ Prahalad Satmanarayan Yadav, S/o Satyanarayan Yadav, R/o Village- Lakrakol, Bhagalpur, Bihar ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj 4. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 3997 of 2023 --------- Bilasi Ekka, W/o Bipin Ekka, Village Khudpose, P.O.- Raikera, P.S. Manoharpur, District- West Singhbhum, Jharkhand ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Chaibasa 3. Registrar, Porahat, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 4629 of 2023 --------- Amarjit Kumar, S/o Bharat Poddar, Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahibganj 4. The District Mining Officer-cum-Confiscation Officer, Sahibganj 5. The District Transport Officer, Sahibganj ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 4856 of 2023 --------- Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -4- Rajkishor Sinha, S/o Nawal Kishor Sinha, R/o Village- Bachra, Block- Mathurapur, P.O. Darha, P.S. Balumath, Latehar, Jharkhand ... … Petitioner Versus 6. The State of Jharkhand 7. The Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 8. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar The District Mining Officer, Latehar ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 5033 of 2023 --------- Prakash Prajapati, S/o Late Hussan Prajapati, Lawalong, Chatra ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Dstrict Magistrate, Latehar 3. Officer-in-Charge, Balumath Police Station, Latehar 4. District Mining Officer, Latehar ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 5174 of 2023 --------- Samar Gorai, S/o Mangru Gorai, R/o Village- Badhadih, Chas (M), Bokaro ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 3. The District Mining Officer, Bokaro ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 5175 of 2023 --------- 1. Arun Chandra Sharma, S/o Satish Sharma, R/o Village Dumarjore, Chas Bokaro 2. Mithun Rajwar, S/o Alku Rajwar, R/o Village Dumarjore, Chas, Bokaro ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 3. The District Mines Officer, Bokaro 4. The Circle Officer, Chas, Bokaro ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 5226 of 2023 --------- Bhootnath Sharma, S/o Kalipad Sharma, R/o village- Dumajor, Chas (M), Bokaro ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro 3. The District Mining Officer, Bokaro ... … Respondents Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -5- With W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2023 --------- Indranath Gope, S/o Late Rampal Gope, R/o Tati Raisera, P.O.- Icha, P.S.- Torpa, District- Khunti (Jharkhand) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Khunti 3. District Mining Officer, Khunti 4. The Officer-in-Charge, Khunti Police Station Karra at Karra P.O.+P.S.- Karra, District- Khunti, Jharkhand 5. Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Karra at Karra P.O.+P.S.- Karra, District- Khunti. ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 870 of 2024 --------- Dabloo Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad Yadav, R/o Village- Chokhusaini, P.O. & P.S. Mansi, District- Khagaria (Bihar) ... … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka 3. District Mining Officer, Dumka ... … Respondents With W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2024 --------- 1. Anmol Kumar Bhagat, S/o Umesh Kumar Bhagat, R/o Nagri, P.O. Nagri, P.S. Piska Nagri, District- Ranchi 2. Samiujma Siddique @ Samiuzzama Siddique, S/o Badrujama Siddique, R/o Village- Tikratola Saparom, Sonartola, P.O. & P.S. Nagri, District- Ranchi ... … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Khunti 3. District Mining Officer, Khunti ... … Respondents --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Pallav, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 3177 of 2023) Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 1931 of 2020 & W.P.(C) No. 5033 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2024) Mr. N.P. Choudhary, Adv. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -6- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Adv. Md. Faiyaj Alam, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2021, W.P.(C) No. 2514 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 2818 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 3276 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 3776 of 2023) Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Adv. Mr. Manjeet Kr. Chaudhary, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 3441 of 2023) Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arpit Kumar, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2023) Mr. Rahul Dev, Adv. Mr. Bipin Bihari, Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi (In W.P.(C) No. 3997 of 2023) Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv. Mr. Deepak Sahu, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 4629 of 2023) Mr. Arpit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Avinash Kumar, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 4856 of 2023) Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Pd. Sinha, Adv. Mr. Sanjaya Kr. Jha, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 5174 of 2023 & W.P.(C) No. 5175 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 5226 of 2023) Mr. K.S. Nanda, Adv. Mr. Niranjan Kr. Sinha, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2023) Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunil Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. (In W.P.(C) No. 870 of 2024) For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, G.A.-I (In W.P.(C) No. 2514 of 2023) Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, S.C.-V (In W.P.(C) No. 5175 of 2023) Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II (In W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2024) ……….. C.A.V. Order Order No. 13/Dated the 11th March, 2025 Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. All these matters relate to confiscation of vehicles for illegal transportation of minerals and their quashment which shall be dealt with in the later part of this Judgment as the primary focus in W.P.(C) No. 3177 of 2023, W.P.(C) No. 1931 of 2020 and W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2024 are with respect to the validity of Rule Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -7- 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 which would have a bearing on the other cases and we accordingly shall bestow our consideration initially in the said three writ applications. However, for the sake of convenience the prayer and the factual aspects involved in all the writ applications are being briefly stated hereinunder. W.P.(C) No. 3177 of 2023 3. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction declaring Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the Rules of 2017) to be ultra virus to Section 21 (4A)(v) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short the MMDR, Act) as the Act bestows the power to confiscate the vehicle and the mineral upon the concerned court competent to take cognizance while the Rules of 2017 confers such power on the Deputy Commissioner and as such the Rules of 2017 is repugnant to the ‘Parent Act’. The petitioner has also prayed for declaring that the Rules of 2017 does not apply to “Process Mineral” as Section 23(C) of the MMDR, Act does not give the State Legislature Competence to enact rules with respect to “Process Mineral”. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the entire proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 11/2022-23 as the same is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the order bearing No. 240 dated 17.05.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 11/2022-23 wherein the concerned respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner to release the mineral so seized and further directed to auction the mineral products seized from the vehicle of the petitioner as the impugned order suffers from gross illegality and arbitrariness. A direction has also been sought for release of the minerals seized along with the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -8- commercial vehicle bearing registration No. JH-18K-8020 which has been illegally detained by the respondent. W.P.(C) No. 1931 of 2020 4. The petitioner in this writ application has sought for quashing of the order dated 02.01.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ramgarh (respondent no. 2) in Confiscation Case No. 01/19/74/2019, by which, the coal, machinery and other equipments have been confiscated and put up for auction. By virtue of I.A. No. 5847 of 2023 having been allowed by this Court the petitioner has mounted a challenge to Rule 11 (v) of the Rules of 2017 which according to the petitioner is ultra vires to the ‘Parent Act’ i.e. MMDR, Act. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner deals in supply of coal and its extraction and transportation. The Central Coalfields Limited had issued several sale orders to M/s GVK Power Limited which has authorized the present petitioner as their representative to act on its behalf and do all necessary work related to the coal ordered from Central Coalfields Limited for its movement through RCR (Rate cum Role) Mode from Gola Railway siding to plant destinations. The authorization letter was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17.01.2019. The petitioner in terms of the aforesaid letter started transporting coal from the coal vender. However, the coal which was kept near Gola Road Railway siding was intercepted and seized by the District Mining Officer, Ramgarh pursuant to which a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07.09.2019. The notice mentioned non-possession of NOC from Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board and lack of Permission from Mines and Geology Department as the primary reason for such seizure. The representative of the petitioner had applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh and had also filed a show cause. With respect to the same incident a First Information Report was also instituted being Gola P.S. Case No. 78/2019 for the offences punishable u/s 21 of the MMDR, Act and Rule 9 of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -9- Rules of 2017. In the confiscation proceeding, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh has passed an order on 02.01.2020 of confiscating and auction of the seized coal. W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2021 5. This writ application is directed against the order dated 27.10.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara in Confiscation Case No. 01/2020-21, by which, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara has confiscated three trucks of the petitioner bearing Registration Nos. WB 39B-0918, WB 39B-6692 and WB 39B-7342 loaded with 400 CFT gravel in each of the trucks. The petitioner has also prayed for release of the aforesaid trucks in favour of the petitioner after quashment of the impugned order dated 27.10.2020. On 22.05.2020, at about 17:00 hours the District Mining Officer, Jamtara had seized three trucks bearing Registration Nos. WB 39B-0918, WB 39B-6692 and WB 39B-7342 loaded with 400 CFT of gravel in each truck near Lohrangi more at Dumka-Govindpur Road on account of the Chalans dated 22.05.2020 shown by the drivers of the vehicles having no seal and signature of Government officials. On an application made by the Superintendent of Police, Jamtara dated 03.07.2020 a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara and notice was issued to the petitioner who is the owner of the seized trucks which was duly responded to by the petitioner by filing a show cause. By virtue of the order dated 27.10.2020 the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara had confiscated all the three trucks which has been challenged on various grounds in the present writ application. W.P.(C) No. 2514 of 2023 6. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire confiscation proceeding arising out of Misc. Case No. 64/2022-23 initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for confiscation of vehicles bearing Registration Nos. BR Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -10- 11S-4624, WB 37E-1167 and NL 01AD-9367, arising out of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 66/2022. The petitioners have also prayed upon quashment of the confiscation proceeding to release the seized vehicles to the petitioners who are the owners of the said vehicles. On the basis of a secret information the District Mining Officer, Deoghar along with Police personnel in course of raid had seized three trucks bearing Registration Nos. BR 11S- 4624, WB 37E-1167 and NL 01AD-9367 and all the three trucks were loaded with coal. Accordingly, a First Information Report was instituted by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 66/2022 for the offences punishable u/s 414/34 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act and Rule 11 & 13 of the Rules of 2017. The petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the truck bearing Registration Nos. BR 11S-4624 which was seized with 24 Metric Tons of coal loaded on it. The petitioner no. 2 is the owner of the other two trucks bearing Registration Nos. WB 37E-1167 and NL 01AD-9367, in which, 29 Metric Tons and 24 Metric Tons of coal respectively were found loaded. After the seizure of the trucks an application was made by the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for initiation of confiscation proceedings and, accordingly, confiscation proceeding being Misc. Case No. 64/2022-23 was instituted under the provisions of Rule 11(v) of the Rules of 2017. The petitioners were also issued show cause notices by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in connection with the confiscation case. W.P.(C) No. 2818 of 2023 7. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire confiscation proceedings arising out of Misc. Case No. 17/2022-23, by virtue of which, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has initiated a proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle bearing Registration No. BR O9GA-6438, in connection with Jasidih P.S. Case No. 69/2022. The petitioner has also prayed for release of the vehicle after quashment of the Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -11- confiscation proceedings. A raid was conducted by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar along with other Police personnel on the basis of a secret information and consequent to such raid two trucks were seized bearing Registration Nos. WB 41G-0328 and BR O9GA-6438 and both the trucks were found loaded with coal. This led to institution of a First Information Report by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar being Jasidih P.S. Case No. 69/2022 for the offences punishable u/s 414/34 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act and Rules 11 & 13 of the Rules of 2017. The petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. BR O9GA-6438 which was seized with 30 Metric Tons of coal. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on the basis of a letter of the Officer In- Charge, Jasidih P.S. submitted through Superintendent of Police Deoghar had initiated a confiscation proceeding being Misc. Case No. 17/2022-23 under Rule 11 (v) of the Rules of 2017, in which, the petitioner has been show caused as to why the seized truck bearing Registration No. BR O9GA-6438 shall not be confiscated. W.P.(C) No. 3276 of 2023 8. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the entire confiscation proceeding arising out of Misc. Case No. 06/2022-23, whereby and whereunder the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has initiated a proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle bearing Registration No. BR 46G-4825 and on quashment of the proceedings to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 9. The factual aspects reveal that on 25.03.2022 during patrolling at 05:00 P.M. a truck bearing Registration No. BR 46G-4825 was intercepted by the District Mining Officer, Deoghar along with Police personnel and since no valid documents regarding transportation of coal was produced the vehicle was seized and a First Information Report was lodged being Kunda P.S. Case No. 66/2022 u/s 414 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act and Rules 11 & 13 of the Rules of 2017. The petitioner Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -12- happens to be the owner of seized truck bearing Registration No. BR 46G-4825. Based on the letter of the Superintendent of Police, Deoghar the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar had initiated a confiscation proceeding being Misc. Case No. 06/2022-23 for confiscation of the vehicle and a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner. W.P.(C) No. 3441 of 2023 10. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the letter dated 27.06.2023 issued by the District Mining Officer, Latehar, whereby and whereunder, the two vehicles of the petitioners bearing Registration Nos. NL 01K-2883 (Old) corresponding to JH 02 BG 1756 (New) and NL 01 AB-3220 have been directed to be auctioned on 08.07.2023 at 03:00 P.M. in the District Collectorate, Latehar though the petitioners have preferred Revision Case No. 54/2023 and Revision Case No. 55/2023 before the Court of Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand against the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar in Confiscation Case No. 104/2022. The petitioners have also prayed for stay of the auction notice issued on 27.06.2023 by the District Mining Officer, Latehar from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar. It is alleged that on information that stolen coal was being transported by several trucks to different centers via Balumath a raid was conducted and some trucks were intercepted but the drivers managed to flee away. On inspection of the vehicles no valid documents regarding transportation of coal could be found. This led to registration of a First Information Report being Balumath P.S. Case No. 73/2022 u/s 379, 414 of the IPC, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act and Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017. 11. The petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL 01 AB-3220 while the petitioner no. 2 is the owner of the vehicles bearing Registration Nos. NL 01K-2883 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -13- (Old) corresponding to JH 02 BG 1756 (New). Both the petitioners are husband and wife. 12. Pursuant to the seizure of the vehicles a confiscation proceeding was initiated being Confiscation Case No. 104/2022 in which show cause notices were not received by the petitioners as it is the claim of the petitioners that the vehicles in question were handed over to Md. Naushad and Md. Irfan for plying, based on agreements entered into with them. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar had passed an order on 17.05.2023 in Confiscation Case No. 104/2022, by which, the vehicles of the petitioners have been confiscated with a direction to the District Mining Officer, Latehar to auction the vehicles within eight weeks. Against the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar the petitioners had preferred revision applications being Revision Case No. 54/2023 and Revision Case No. 55/2023 before the Mines Commissioner, Jharkhand which are pending. In the meantime, an auction notice has been issued vide letter dated 27.06.2023 for auctioning the vehicles of the petitioners. W.P.(C) No. 3776 of 2023 13. This writ application was preferred by the original writ petitioner namely, Shambhu Bhagat but due to his death during the pendency of this writ application on 25.01.2024 he has been substituted by his legal heirs namely, Mala Devi and Ashish Kumar Bhagat being the wife and son respectively of the original writ petitioner vide order dated 21.03.2024. 14. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No. 09/2022-23, arising out of Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 26/2022 registered for the offences u/s 414 of the I.P.C., Section 4 of M.M.D.R. Act, Section 11 and 13 of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, whereby and whereunder the vehicle bearing registration Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -14- No. JH04F-6717 has been ordered to be confiscated. A further prayer has been made to release the vehicle bearing registration No. JH04F-6717 in favour of the petitioners. 15. A raid was conducted near Godda Muffasil Police Gate on 31.01.2022 and the vehicle of the petitioners bearing registration No. JH04F-6717 was intercepted and 12 quintals of coal was found loaded thereon. Since no valid documents could be produced by the driver the vehicle was seized and a confiscation proceeding was initiated being Confiscation Case No. 09/2022-23. Vide order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda the vehicle bearing registration No. JH04F-6717 was confiscated. W.P.(C) No. 3978 of 2023 16. Being aggrieved with the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahibganj in Confiscation Case No. 26/2022-23, by which, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH 04L-8549 loaded with stone chips has been confiscated, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ application. The petitioner has further prayed upon quashment of the order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 26/2022-23 to release the vehicle along with stone chips in his favour. 17. On 25.06.2022, a surprise raid was conducted over the Mandro-Boarijor Road by the Circle Officer, Mandro along with Police officials and during the raid at Geda Pariharpur Village two tipper trucks were found to be transporting illegally mined stone chips without any mining challan. Based on such allegations Mirzachowki P.S. Case No. 55 of 2022 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 379/411 of the IPC, Rule 4 and 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2004 and Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of 2017. 18. The petitioner is the owner of one of the tipper trucks seized bearing Registration No. JH 04L-8549. On a Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -15- communication made by the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj on 11.08.2022 a confiscation proceeding was initiated being Confiscation Case No. 26/2022-23 for confiscation of the two tipper trucks. Vide order dated 28.03.2023, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahibganj had confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner and had directed to auction the vehicle along with the stone chips loaded on it. W.P.(C) No. 3997 of 2023 19. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Confiscation Case / Misc. Case No. 24/2022, by which, the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH 06N-1486 has been confiscated. A further prayer has been made upon quashment of the order dated 23.03.2023 passed in Confiscation Case / Misc. Case No. 24/2022 to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. 20. It has been alleged that on 04.06.2022 at 4:00 A.M. a raid was conducted by the Police officials at the River Ghat of village Raikera, Khudposh and the tractor which was found illegally loading sand from the River Ghat was seized. This led to institution of Manoharpur P.S. Case No. 28/2022 u/s 379/411 of the IPC, Section 21(4) of the MMDR, Act, Rule 54(4) of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rule, 2004 and Rule 11(9) of the Rules of 2017. 21. The petitioner is the owner of the seized Mahindra tractor which was the subject matter of Confiscation Case / Misc. Case No. 24/2022 and vide order dated 23.03.2023 the tractor of the petitioner has been confiscated. W.P.(C) No. 4629 of 2023 22. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Deputy Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -16- Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahibganj in Confiscation Case No. 27/2022-23, whereby and whereunder, the tractor of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH-18J-6424 has been confiscated in terms of Rule 11(v) of the Rules of 2017. The petitioner has also prayed for release of the confiscated vehicle in his favour upon quashment of the impugned order dated 31.03.2023. 23. On a raid conducted by the Circle Officer, Mandro along with Police officials on 21.06.2022 three tractors loaded with stone chips were intercepted. The drivers of the tractors could not produce any document in connection with the transportation of stone chips. 24. Based on such allegations Mirzachouki P.S. Case No. 53/2022 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 379/411 of the IPC, Rule 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions Rule, 2004 and Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of 2017. 25. The petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. JH-18J-6424. Based on letter no. 3153 dated 11.08.2022 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Sahibganj, the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Sahibganj had initiated a confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 27/2022-23. It is the case of the petitioner that though the fine amount of Rs. 40,000/- was deposited through Online Mode in terms of the direction of the Confiscating Authority but vide order dated 31.03.2023 the tractor bearing Registration No. JH-18J-6424 was confiscated. W.P.(C) No. 4856 of 2023 26. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 08.07.2023 passed in Confiscation Case No. 109/2022, by virtue of which, the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar has ordered for confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH 01 CY 2781. Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -17- 27. The petitioner is the owner of a Maruti Baleno Zeta Car bearing Registration No. JH 01 CY 2781. On 08.06.2022 at 3:30 A.M. on a secret information that two Hywas illegally loaded with coal were going towards Panki via Herhanj from Balumath Police Station area two Hywas loaded with coal were intercepted. No document showing validity of such transportation could be produced by the drivers of the Hywa vehicles. A Maruti Baleno bearing Registration No. JH 01 CY 2781 alleged to be escorting the Hywas toward its destination was also intercepted and seized. This led to institution of a First Information Report being Herhanj P.S. Case No. 28/2022 u/s 379/411 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act, Section 32(ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act and Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017. In view of the communication made by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar vide letter dated 29.09.2022 a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar being Confiscation Case No. 109/2022 for confiscation of the two Hywas and the Maruti Baleno Car of the petitioner. Subsequently vide impugned order dated 08.07.2023 the Maruti Baleno Zeta Car of the petitioner was confiscated with a further direction to auction the said car within a period of eight weeks. W.P.(C) No. 5033 of 2023 28. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar being Confiscation Case No. 107/2022, wherein the JCB of the petitioner has been confiscated and the same has been put up for auction. The petitioner has further prayed for setting aside the auction dated 27.05.2023 and the order issued vide letter no. 629 dated 29.05.2023, by which, the JCB of the petitioner has been auctioned by the District Mining Officer, Latehar. 29. On an information, that sand was being illegally loaded on a truck through a JCB the Officer Incharge of Balumath Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -18- Police Station along with other Police personnel had reached the place of occurrence where they saw one truck and a JCB in a statutory position and two persons were also found standing there. The owner-cum-driver of the truck was apprehended who disclosed about the destination of the coal. 30. Based on such allegations Balumath P.S. Case No. 145/2022 was instituted for the offences u/s 379/414 of the IPC, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act and Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017. 31. The petitioner is the owner of the JCB bearing Registration No. JH 13F-8156 and a proceeding was initiated for confiscation of the same being Confiscation Case No. 107/2022. Vide order dated 25.04.2023 the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate had confiscated the JCB and gave a direction for auction of the JCB. In terms of the direction as contained in order dated 25.04.2023 the JCB bearing Registration No. JH 13F- 8156 was auctioned on 27.05.2023 and the same was purchased by Devraj Kumar Agrawal at Rs. 13,73,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid by the purchaser within a period of ten days. Subsequently the entire consideration amount was deposited by Devraj Kumar Agrawal. W.P.(C) No. 5174 of 2023 32. The prayer made in this writ application is for quashing of the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in Confiscation Case No. 93/2022-23, whereby and whereunder the tractor and trolley of the petitioner which was seized in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 54/2022 has been confiscated. 33. Briefly stated the facts reveal that the petitioner is the owner of the tractor bearing Registration No. JH 09AA-9379 and the said tractor along with the trolley attached therewith and loaded with sand was the subject matter of Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 54/2022 registered for the offences punishable u/s 379/411/34 of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -19- the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act, Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2004 and Rule 13 of the Rules of 2017. A confiscation case being Confiscation Case No. 93/2022- 23 was initiated which culminated in confiscation of the tractor and the trolley by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro vide order dated 12.06.2023. W.P.(C) No. 5175 of 2023 34. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for quashing of the notice dated 10.05.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro against the petitioner no. 2 for confiscation of the tractor of the petitioner no. 1 along with the trolley which was seized in connection with Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 158/2022. 35. The petitioner no. 1 is the owner of the tractor TRAKSTAR and the petitioner no. 2 is the driver of the said tractor. The tractor of the petitioner no. 1 along with the trolley loaded with 100 CFT of sand was seized by the Police and a First Information Report was instituted being Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 158/2022 u/s 379/414 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act, Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2004. A confiscation proceeding was also initiated being Confiscation Case No. 06/2023-24 in terms of Rule 11(v) of the Rules of 2017. W.P.(C) No. 5226 of 2023 36. The petitioner in this writ application is aggrieved by the order dated 12.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro in Confiscation Case No. 93/2022-23, whereby and whereunder, the Mahindra tractor of the petitioner along with the trolley have been confiscated. 37. The petitioner is the owner of the Mahindra tractor bearing DI Engine No. NDNLO 4835. The tractor of the petitioner along with the trolley loaded with sand were seized which led to institution of Chas (M) P.S. Case No. 54/2022 registered u/s 379/411/34 of the IPC, Section 21 of the MMDR, Act, Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004 and Rule Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -20- 13 of the Rules of 2017. A confiscation proceeding was also initiated being Confiscation Case No. 93/2022-23 in terms of Rule 11(v) of the Rules of 2017 and vide impugned order dated 12.06.2023 the Mahindra tractor of the petitioner and the trolley loaded with sand were confiscated. W.P.(C) No. 6755 of 2023 38. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti in Confiscation Case No. 02R28/2023 so far as it relates to the petitioner, by which, in exercise of the powers under Rules 11(V) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage), Rules, 2017 has initiated a confiscation proceeding and ordered for seizure of the vehicles along with minerals loaded on it to be confiscated with a further direction to the District Mining Officer to initiate auction to confiscate the vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration No. JH01DL-6473 along with the minerals. 39. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. JH01DL-6473 which was seized on account of transportation of sand without any transportation challan and which led to initiation of a proceeding for confiscation of the vehicle being Confiscation Case No. 02R28/2023. Vide order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti the vehicle of the petitioner was confiscated with a direction to the District Mining Officer to initiate auction of the confiscated vehicle along with the minerals. W.P.(C) No. 870 of 2024 40. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.07.2023/26.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Confiscation Case No. 10/2022- 23, whereby and whereunder the truck bearing Registration No. BR-10GB-9698 along with 850 CFT of stone chips have been Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -21- confiscated. An inspection was conducted by the District Mining Officer, Dumka on 07.06.2022 and several trucks loaded with stone chips were seized as no document with respect to such transportation were produced by the drivers. Accordingly, Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 78/2022 was instituted for the offences punishable u/s 379/411 of the IPC, Rule 4/54 of Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2004, Section 4/21 of the MMDR, Act and Rules 9/13 of the Rules of 2017. 41. On an application filed by the District Mining Officer, Dumka a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka being Confiscation Case No. 10/2022-23 and vide order dated 25.07.2023/26.09.2023 the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-10GB-9698 along with 850 CFT of stone chips was confiscated. W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2024 42. This writ application is directed against the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti in Confiscation Case No. 04R28/23, by virtue of which the commercial vehicle of the petitioners being Hywa bearing Registration No. JH-01-FC-4828 and JH-01-FA-0106 have been confiscated and auction process has been initiated. The petitioners have also prayed to declare and hold Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2017 as ultra vires, illegal and against the provisions of Section 21 and 23(C) of the MMDR, Act 1957. The petitioners have also prayed for release of the vehicles in their favour. 43. On 21.09.2023, the Hywa vehicles of the petitioners were seized on the allegations of transportation of sand which led to institution of Jariagarh P.S. Case No. 39/2023 for the offences punishable u/s 414 of the IPC, Section 4/21 of the MMDR, Act, Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Minerals Concessions RuleS, 2004 and Rules 7, 9 and 13 of the Rules of 2017. In terms of the letter of Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -22- the District Mining Officer, Khunti a confiscation proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti being Confiscation Case No. 04R28/23 and vide order dated 09.01.2024 both the vehicles of the petitioners were confiscated along with sand and it was directed to initiate auction process for the vehicles and the sand. 44. Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 3177 of 2023 has submitted that the Rules of 2017 has been enacted in terms of Section 23C(1) and 23C(2) of the MMDR, Act which empowers the State Government to make Rules for preventing illegal mining, transportation & storage of minerals. He has referred to Section 21 of the MMDR Act while submitting that the said provision empowers the Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence u/s 21(1) to adjudicate the issue of confiscation of a vehicle or vendor. In such context, reference has also been made to Section 22 of the MMDR, Act which envisages cognizance of offences. Mr. Pallav has, therefore, submitted that Sections 21, 22 and 23(C) of the MMDR, Act would categorically indicate that only the Court of the Judicial Magistrate has a jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the confiscation of vehicle and minerals. Rule 11 (v) of the Rules of 2017 is, therefore, repugnant to the provisions of the ‘Parent Act’ and as such is ultra vires to the MMDR, Act. He has also submitted that Section 23 (C) of the MMDR, Act empowers the State Government to make rules with respect to “Minerals” but the Rules of 2017 tend to expand the scope and definition of minerals by adding an explanation which includes “Process Mineral” which is beyond the scope of the ‘Parent Act’. In this context, reference has been made to the case of “M/s. Novel Granites Ltd. & Ors. Versus State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in (2008) Online AP 639. 45. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1931 of 2020 has submitted that the Rules have been made u/s 23 (C) of the MMDR, Act. It has been Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -23- submitted that the MMDR, Act was enacted to provide for development of minerals and regulation of mines under the control of the Union. The State Government is competent to exercise its power strictly in terms of the provisions of the MMDR, Act and must act inconformity with and not in derogation of the provisions of the MMDR, Act. Mr. Nilesh Kumar has referred to Section 21 (4) and 21 (4A) of the MMDR, Act and while conjointly reading the said provision it is clear that if a person raises, transports or causes to be raised or transported, without any lawful authority, any mineral from any land, without any lawful authority and, for that purpose, uses any tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing, then such mineral, tool, equipment, vehicle or any other thing shall be liable to be seized by an officer or authority specially empowered in this behalf and consequently may also be liable to be confiscated by an order of the court competent to take cognizance of the offence vide sub-section (1) and shall be disposed of in accordance with the directions of such court. He has also referred to Section 22 of the MMDR, Act which provides for cognizance of offences and a cumulative reading of Section 21 (4), 21 (4A) and 22 of the MMDR, Act would conclusively proved that the Court which has been set in motion for a trial of the offences punishable u/s 21 (1) of the MMDR, Act would alone be competent to pass an order of confiscation of such minerals, tools, equipments, vehicles and issue consequent directions for disposal of the same. 46. The other learned counsels have adopted the submissions of Mr. Prashant Pallav and Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsels. 47. Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned G.A.-I for the respondents appearing in W.P.(C) No. 2514 of 2023 has submitted that Rules 11B of the Rules of 2017 is in consonance with Section 21 (4A) of the MMDR, Act and not in contravention of the same. Section 21 of the MMDR, Act comes into play when there has been Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -24- a violation of Section 4 (1A) of the MMDR, Act. Mr. Roy has read out before us Rule 11(v) of the Rules of 2017 and has submitted that it is not in contravention of Section 21 of the MMDR, Act. Mr. Roy has also read out Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act and has tried to impress upon us that Rule 11(v) of the Rules of 2017 is pari materia with the said provision. This issue was already considered by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 862 of 2020 wherein a stamp of approval was given to the authority of the Deputy Commissioner under the Rules of 2017 and ousting the jurisdiction of the Court. Mr. Roy has also sought to highlight the legislative intent behind incorporating Section 21 of the MMDR, Act. 48. Mr. Kishore Kumar Singh, learned S.C.-V appearing for the respondents in W.P.(C) No. 5175 of 2023 has supported the submission of Mr. Roy by submitting that criminal proceedings and confiscation proceedings are distant and separate and there is nothing to suggest that confiscation can be done only on conclusion of the trial. This would manifest in Rule 11B of the Rules of 2017 which is in consonance and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the MMDR Act. 49. Both the learned State Counsels have asserted that the rules framed u/s 23 (C) of the MMDR, Act specifically Rule 11(v) is within the competence of the State Government and does not accede in its jurisdiction for the reasons stated by them. 50. The issue raised in these batch of writ applications are no longer res integra. In the case of “Aditya Enterprises & Others versus State of Jharkhand & Others” reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 2301, it has been held as follows: “28. From what has been discussed and held above, we find that there are two authorities prescribed as the Confiscating Authority : one under the parent Act and one under the Rules. As it has been held that the power search, seize and confiscate under the Act and the Rules are not different and rather are the same and the Rules derives power from the parent Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -25- Act, thus, there is a clear inconsistency in the aforesaid provision. The parent Act does not confer the State to promulgate a Rule and empower a different authority than prescribed under the Act to be the Confiscating Authority. When under the Act the authority to confiscate is specified and is identifiable (as the Court taking cognizance), the Rules giving power to the Deputy Commissioner is nothing but an excessive delegation. 29. Further, this point is strengthened from the fact that as per Section 21(3) of the Act, the provision does not prescribe as to who would be the “authorised authority” or the “authority authxorised” to inspect and seize. When the authority is not specified, it is well within the ambit of delegated legislation to name and prescribe the authorised authority. The same has been done here in the Rules, when the authorised authority has been nominated/named as per Rule 11(i), but so far as the Confiscating Authority is concerned, Act specifies the same to be the Court taking cognizance, thus, the State legislature is denuded of its power to nominate the Deputy Commissioner of each district to be the confiscating authority. 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. 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 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -26- 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.” 51. The summarized conclusion arrived at by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case reads as follows: “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. 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 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:18624-DB ) -27- does not give any independent power to any authority to confiscate. v. Rule 11(1) only nominates and identifies the authority authorised 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.” 52. Since Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017 has been declared as ultra vires any confiscation proceeding initiated by the Deputy Commissioner under the rules is illegal and is beyond jurisdiction. Accordingly, confiscation of the vehicles along with the minerals loaded on it in respect to all these writ applications wherever applicable is hereby held to be without any authority of law and is accordingly quashed and set aside with a liberty to proceed for confiscation before the Court having power to take cognizance of the offence. 53. All these writ applications are disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) A. Sanga/-