2026:CGHC:22538-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 276 of 2026 Faijul Firdausi S/o. Abdul Rajjak Aged About 38 Years R/o. Nawagarh, Ambikapur Dist.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Mineral Resources Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Dist.- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Collector (Mining) Ambikapur Dist.- Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Mining Officer Ambikapur Dist.- Surguja (C.G.) 4 - Reserve Inspector Police Line Ambikapur, Dist.- Surguja (C.G.) ...Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Ms Chetna Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/State : Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy AG and Shri Saumya Rai, Dy GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 Heard Ms Chetna Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Dy AG and Shri Saumya Rai, Dy GA for the State. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition for the following reliefs: Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.19 16:02:25 +0530 Wpcr 276 of 2026 2 “1. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the record of the case 2. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate direction to the respondent no.2 and 3 to release the seized Truck bearing vehicle No.CG.29-A/5882 in the light of order dated 07.04.2026 by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders. 3. The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate direction to the respondent no.2, to provide monetary compensation for the total duration of 5 months to the petitioner for illegal seizer and holding of the vehicle of the petitioner due to which petitioner has to face and bear heavy income loss, by issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders. 4. Any other relief/reliefs which Hon’ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is owner of the Truck bearing vehicle No.CG.29-A/5882. On 16.01.2026, he engaged the said vehicle for execution of levelling work. However, the same has been seized by the Revenue authorities as well as Officers of the mining department of inspection. The case under Section 21(4) and (5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act 1957 (for short, ‘MM Act’) was registered and kept the said vehicle in custody at Reserve Police Centre, Police Line, Ambikapur, from 16.01.2026. Petitioner has made an application for grant of interim custody under Section 503 of the BNSS before the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District-Surguja, bearing Supurdnama Case No.22 of 2026, which was decided on 07.04.2026 and the interim custody of the vehicle was granted in favour of the petitioner. Despite grant of interim custody in favour of the petitioner by Wpcr 276 of 2026 3 the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, the Mining Officers are not releasing the subject vehicle in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner made a complaint to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur with respect to non-releasing of the vehicle despite granting interim custody in favour of the petitioner, and show-cause notice was issued on 16.01.2026 to the Mining Officers by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, to which Mining Officers replied that the subject vehicle can be released only after depositing the fine/penalty amount of Rs.42,68,160/- with the Mining Department. 3. She would further submit that when the learned Sessions Judge has ordered for release of the vehicle in question on interim custody to the petitioner, putting the condition of depositing such a huge amount would be violative of legal right of the petitioner to obtain the subject vehicle in interim custody. Therefore, indulgence of this Court is required for a direction to the authorities of the Mining Department for immediate release of the vehicle in question as per the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. 4. She would also submit that the subject vehicle is a heavy duty vehicle and the petitioner is suffering from huge monetary loss day-by-day and by keeping it in stationary/nonmoving condition, it would decay the same and by lapse of time, it would be destroyed. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the authorities concerned may be directed to release the vehicle immediately in favour of the petitioner. Wpcr 276 of 2026 4 5. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes and would submit that there is already an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, and once the order is in favour of the petitioner, same cannot be executed under the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed 7. The present writ petition has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction upon the respondent authorities for release of the subject vehicle seized in connection with proceedings under the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act). 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the competent Sessions Court, while exercising revisional/appellate jurisdiction in the proceedings arising out of the seizure, has already been pleased to pass an order directing release of the vehicle in interim custody in favour of the petitioner subject to certain terms and conditions. It is contended that despite the subsistence and operative nature of the said judicial order, the concerned police authorities and the officers of the Mining Department have failed to comply with the same and have withheld release of the vehicle without any authority of law. 9. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that the grievance of the Wpcr 276 of 2026 5 petitioner substantially relates to implementation and enforcement of an order already passed by a competent criminal court. 10. It is well settled that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and equitable in nature. Ordinarily, such jurisdiction is not exercised for execution, implementation, or enforcement of judicial orders passed by competent courts, particularly where the statute itself provides an adequate and efficacious remedy before the same forum or another competent forum. 11. Once the learned Sessions Court has exercised jurisdiction and passed an order directing interim release of the seized vehicle, the proper course available to the petitioner is to seek enforcement and compliance of the said order before the concerned court itself. The court which has passed the order possesses incidental and ancillary powers to ensure obedience and implementation of its judicial directions. In the event of deliberate or willful non-compliance by the authorities concerned, it is always open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law before the competent forum. 12. This Court is of the considered view that entertaining the present writ petition for implementation of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court would virtually amount to converting the writ jurisdiction into an executing forum for orders passed by subordinate criminal courts, which is not the scope and object of Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. At the same time, it needs to be observed that judicial orders passed by competent courts are binding upon the authorities concerned and are Wpcr 276 of 2026 6 required to be complied with in letter and spirit unless stayed, modified, or set aside by a superior court of competent jurisdiction. Administrative authorities cannot sit in appeal over judicial orders nor can they refuse compliance on administrative considerations. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma