1 2026:CGHC:21933 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2341 of 2026 1 - Smt. Sunita Rathore W/o Shri Murli Rathore Aged About 43 Years R/o Village- Dongiya Portha Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District- Sakti (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Mineral Resources Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector Sakti District- Sakti (C.G.) 3 - District Mining Officer Mining Department , District- Sakti (C.G.) 4 - Officer - In - Charge Police Station Hasoud District Sakti (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from CIS System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Nayak, Advocate For State : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/05/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the seizure and continued detention of commercial vehicles bearing registration Nos. CG 11 BV 9995 and CG 12 BG 1560 by the Mining Department and seeking their release from custody. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to place all the records of the case for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court. 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a direction to the Respondents to immediately release the vehicles bearing registration numbers CG 11 BV 9995 and CG 12 BG 1560 currently detained at Police Station Hasoud, District Sakti. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue an direction to the Respondents to pay a sum of at least Rs. 2.00 Lakh (Rupees Two Lakhonly) as compensation to the Petitioner for the illegal seizure, financial loss, and mental harassment caused by the arbitrary actions of the Mining 3 Department. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondents from taking any further coercive action against the Petitioner's vehicles in the absence of a verified violation of the law. 10.5 That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit including the cost of litigation to the petitioner from the Respondents for the mental agony and harassment.” 2. Facts of the case, as projected, are that the petitioner is a small- scale entrepreneur engaged in the business of transportation of minerals and other goods for earning her livelihood. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of commercial vehicles bearing registration Nos. CG 11 BV 9995 and CG 12 BG 1560, which are stated to be the sole source of income for the petitioner and are presently under hypothecation with Axis Bank Ltd. and Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Company Ltd. respectively. It is further the case of the petitioner that vehicle bearing registration No. CG 11 BV 9995 was purchased vide Tax Invoice dated 10.02.2026 and vehicle bearing registration No. CG 12 BG 1560 is also duly registered and financed through a financial institution. According to the petitioner, both the vehicles were being operated through duly licensed drivers possessing 4 valid driving licences issued by the competent authority. The petitioner has further averred that on 21.04.2026, vehicle No. CG 11 BV 9995 had gone to Marghatti Sand Ghat for collection of sand and at the relevant time the vehicle was empty and was allegedly carrying a valid Mineral Transit Pass bearing No. 9956515 issued in favour of the lease holder. Similarly, on the same date, vehicle No. CG 12 BG 1560 was also allegedly seized by the Mining Department while it was empty and was accompanied by a valid Mineral Transit Pass bearing No. 9956516. According to the petitioner, despite the vehicles being empty and despite possession of valid royalty passes, the Mining Department illegally seized the vehicles and thereafter the same were kept at Police Station Hasoud. It is further stated that the petitioner submitted affidavits and thereafter a detailed representation dated 28.04.2026 before the Collector, District Sakti seeking release of the vehicles, however, no action has been taken by the authorities till date. Being aggrieved by the alleged illegal seizure and continued detention of the vehicles, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the seizure of the vehicles by the Mining Department is wholly arbitrary and contrary to law inasmuch as both the vehicles were empty at the relevant point of time and were supported by valid Mineral Transit Passes. It is contended that no illegal mining or illegal transportation was being carried out by the petitioner and therefore the seizure 5 proceedings are without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was neither issued any proper seizure memo nor afforded any opportunity of hearing before seizure of the vehicles. It is argued that continued detention of the vehicles is causing severe financial hardship to the petitioner as the vehicles were purchased through bank finance and substantial monthly installments are required to be paid to the financing institutions. Learned counsel submits that due to seizure of the vehicles, the petitioner is unable to carry on her business activities and is suffering irreparable financial loss. It is therefore prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to release the vehicles forthwith. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that a POR case has already been registered by the concerned department against the petitioner and due to the illegal acts allegedly committed by the owner of the vehicles in question, the said vehicles were seized and thereafter handed over to the concerned Police Station in accordance with law. Learned State counsel further submits that if the petitioner seeks interim custody/release of the seized vehicles on supurdnama, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of filing an appropriate application before the competent jurisdictional Court and the said Court may consider such application in accordance with law. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6 6. From the pleadings and documents available on record, it appears that the vehicles in question have already been seized by the competent authorities and a POR case has also been registered by the concerned department. The vehicles have thereafter been handed over to the concerned Police Station. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and considering the submissions advanced by learned State counsel, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner seeks release of the vehicles on supurdnama, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent jurisdictional Court. In the event such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the concerned Court strictly in accordance with law and without being influenced by any observation made hereinabove. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations raised by either of the parties. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna Judge