Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18285 (JHR)

MANOJ YADAV v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Cr.Rev./345/2024 · 2026-06-29

Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18835 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Rev. No. 345 of 2024 Manoj Yadav, R/o Vill- Garhwatand, P.O.- Champi, P.S.- Petarwar, Dist.- Bokaro. --- --- Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand. --- --- Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : Mrs. Trishna Sagar, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. For the State : Spl. P.P. --- 10/29.06.2026 Heard Mrs. Trishna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Misc. Petitioner No. 3780 of 2023 arising out of Petarwar P.S. Case No. 22/2023, whereby and whereunder, the application preferred for release of the tractor bearing Registration No. JH09 BB-5529 has been rejected. Learned counsel submits that the matter is now no longer res integra in view of the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023 and its analogous cases as it is only the Court taking cognizance who is the Confiscating Authority under the Act and Rules and the Deputy Commissioner of the district has got no power to initiate and decide the confiscation proceedings as the same is in conflict with the parent Act. Learned counsel submits that Rule 11(5) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage Rules, 2017 has already been declared ultra vires to the parent act vide the said judgment. Learned Spl. P.P. has opposed the prayer made in this application. It has been alleged that in course of inspection made by the informant and the Officer-in-Charge of the Petarwar P.S., a tractor bearing Registration No. JH09 BB-5529 being Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18835 illegally loaded with sand was apprehended and 100cft of sand was seized along with the vehicle. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Petarwar P.S. Case No. 22/2023 was instituted. The petitioner had preferred an application for release of the tractor in Cr. Misc. Petition No. 3728/2023 which, however, was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2023 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat and which is the order impugned to the present application. It appears that the confiscation proceedings had been initiated for confiscating the tractor in question being Confiscation Proceeding No. 121/2022-2023 before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro under the provisions of Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage Rules, 2017. The issue in question has already been considered in W.P.(C) No. 6788 of 2023 and the following conclusion was arrived at: “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 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18835 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. 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 Neutral Citation 2026:JHHC:18835 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.” In view of the fact that Rule 11(5) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining Transportation and Storage Rules, 2017 has been declared ultra vires to the parent act, the Deputy Commissioner does not have the power to initiate and decide the confiscation proceeding as is being done in the present case. It has been held in the said order that only the Court taking cognizance can be the Confiscating Authority under the Act and Rules. In view of the fact that the issue in question has already been decided as noted above, the order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat in Cr. Misc. Petitioner No. 3780 of 2023 arising out of Petarwar P.S. Case No. 22/2023 is hereby quashed and set aside with a further direction to release the tractor of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH09 BB-5259 on such conditions as the learned court below may fix. This application stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated- 29th June, 2026. Preet/- Uploaded on: 01 /07/2026.