2026:JHHC:21571-DB 1 | P a g e IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 5989 of 2025 --- Ashok Singh, S/o Ram Jatan Singh, R/o Village-Budhi Paimar, P.O.- Goga, P.S.-Wajirganj, District-Gaya (Bihar) … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi 2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Commissioner of Mines, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Latehar 5. The District Mining Officer, Latehar …. .… Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Shahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III For the intervenor : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate ----- Reserved on 15.07.2026 Pronounced on 22.07.2026 Per : Rajesh Shankar, J. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of direction upon the respondents to release the truck (hywa) bearing registration No. OD-09P-3039 (hereinafter referred as ‘the said vehicle’) in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Mines Commissioner, Ranchi (respondent no. 3 herein) in Revision Case No.17 of 2023. 3. The fact of the case in brief is that the said vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the officials of Balumath Police Station allegedly loaded with illegal coal. Thereafter Balumath P.S Case No. 265 of 2021 was lodged u/s 414/420/467/468/471/34 IPC, 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 2 | P a g e Section 30(ii) of Coal Mines Act, Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Section 13 of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. Subsequently, Confiscation Case No. 102 of 2022 was instituted by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar in the Court of Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar (the respondent no.4 herein) for confiscation of the said vehicle and a notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.11.2022 under the signature of In-Charge Deputy Collector, District Legal Branch, Latehar. 4. The petitioner appeared before the court of the respondent no.4 and replied the said notice. Finally, the respondent no.4 issued the order of confiscation of the said vehicle vide order dated 25.02.2023 directing the District Mining officer, Latehar (respondent no. 5) to auction the said vehicle and deposit the auctioned amount in the Government treasury within a period of eight weeks. 5. Aggrieved with the order dated 25.02.2023, the petitioner filed Revision Case No.17 of 2023 before the respondent no. 3 which was allowed vide the order as contained in Memo No. 1166 dated 16.05.2025 remanding the matter to the respondent no. 4 with an instruction to release the said vehicle after realizing payable royalty/penalty/other tax as per provision of the Jharkhand Mines and Mineral Rules, 2004 (in short ‘Rules, 2004’). 6. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation before the 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 3 | P a g e respondent no. 4 on 18.07.2025 along with a copy of order dated 16.05.2025 passed in Revision Case No.17/2023 for release of the said vehicle in his favour, however the same was not released. 7. Hence, the present writ petition. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit on 10.11.2025 in the present case asserting that the said vehicle was already auctioned on 08.03.2023 itself which was purchased by one Bhola Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘the intervenor’) at Rs. 20,78,500/- and due to the said fact, the said vehicle could not be released by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the respondent no. 3. 9. Keeping in view the said averment of the respondents, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025 observed as under: - “7. In the counter affidavit, stand inter alia has been taken that the vehicle has already been auctioned and transfer in favour of the 3rd party by the process of auction dated 08.03.2023. 8. It appears from the material on record that the revision was to be filed within 60 days as per the provision provided under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rules, 2004 which was to be completed on 26.04.2023, on calculation being made and on consideration of the fact that in the month of February, 2023, there were only 28 days. The auction took place on 08.03.2023 that is admitted case as per the annexure appended as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which was within the period of limitation as provided under Rule 62 of the JMMC Rule, 2004. 9. The question here which requires to be answered by the State that when the statute provides 60 days limitation to file revision and if within the aforesaid period of 60 days any action 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 4 | P a g e adverse to the interest of the litigant concerned, the writ petitioner herein, will certainly prejudice the case of the concerned litigant, exactly the same is the case herein, since the revision which was to be filed up to 26.04.2023, has been filed on 22.03.2023 but the vehicle in question was put on auction on 08.03.2023, i.e., within the period of 60 days. 10. In the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, there is no explanation to that effect save and except the vehicle has been transferred by way of auction which took place on 08.03.2023. 11. The further question which requires to be answered by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar that if the vehicle in question has been put on auction within a period of 60 days, how can such auction be justified to be proper in the eyes of law. 12. The same since has not been explained in the counter affidavit and, as such, one more indulgence is being given to the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar to explain for passing further necessary order.” 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent nos.4 & 5 on 25.11.2025 stating that the respondent no.4 took necessary steps to restore the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner and accordingly vide letter No. 1220 dated 22.11.2025, the intervenor was directed to hand over the said vehicle to the court of the respondent no. 4. It was further averred in the said affidavit that the respondent no. 4 and 5 took all possible steps in view of the order passed by the respondent no. 3. 11. The matter was again placed before a Co-ordinate Bench of this court on 25.11.2025 and the Bench being not satisfied with the statement made in the said supplementary counter affidavit directed the respondent no. 4 to come out with a specific stand 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 5 | P a g e so as to resolve the issue. 12. Thereafter, according to the respondent no. 4, he took steps to resolve the matter and in that process, issued notices to the petitioner and the intervenor. The intervenor replied the notice stating that he spent approximate Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs fifty thousand) in making the said vehicle operational after purchasing it in auction and hence he could return the said vehicle if Rs. 43,00,000/- along with interest was paid to him. 13. The respondent no. 4 then directed the intervenor, vide his order dated 25.05.2026 passed in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2026, to surrender the said vehicle to the respondent no. 5 within 2 days of the order and further took a decision that the intervenor would be paid a sum of Rs. 20,78,500/- along with simple interest at the prevailing bank rate. 14. Thereafter, the respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 611 dated 27.05.2026, requested the Director, Mines for allotment of Rs.26,57,633/- in total to pay the said amount to the intervenor as a condition to return the said vehicle. It has also been averred in the supplementary counter affidavit that after allotment, the said amount was paid to the intervenor. 15. It also appears that the intervenor handed over the said vehicle to the District Administration, Latehar on 10.06.2026 and the respondent no.4, vide letter dated 15.06.2026, asked the petitioner to collect the said vehicle. However, the petitioner has not collected the vehicle till date and the same has been kept in 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 6 | P a g e the safe custody of Police Line, Latehar. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said vehicle was stolen in the night of 24.11.2021 and in this regard an FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No.630 of 2021 was lodged by him. 17. It is further submitted that the said vehicle was seized by Bariyatu T.O.P. In-Charge, Balumath Police Station on 21.12.2021 allegedly carrying illegal coal with fake registration number. According to the petitioner, the said vehicle was being used by the persons who had stolen it. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for release of the said vehicle, however, during pendency of the said application, he received a notice in Confiscation Case No.102/2022 instituted by the Superintendent of Police, Latehar in the Court of Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Magistrate, Latehar. 18. It is further submitted that the petitioner appeared and filed reply in the said confiscation case, however the said vehicle was confiscated vide order dated 25.02.2023 passed by the respondent no.4 directing the respondent no. 5 to auction the said vehicle and deposit the auctioned amount in the Government treasury within a period of eight weeks. 19. It is also submitted that pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2023, the said vehicle was put to auction hurriedly without waiting for expiry of the statutory period for filing revision by the petitioner against the said order. 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 7 | P a g e 20. It is further argued that even the auction of the said vehicle was done without issuing any notice to the petitioner and thus the said auction was itself in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. 21. It is also contended that due to the said arbitrary attitude of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered huge financial loss as well as mental agony and as such, in addition to getting back the said vehicle, he is also entitled to be paid adequate compensation by the respondents. 22. The learned counsel for the Intervener submits that the Intervener purchased the vehicle in auction sale for an amount of Rs. 20,78,500/- however the same was not fit to be plied. As such, he made additional expense of Rs. 22,50,000/- to make it operational and thus the total cost incurred by him towards the said vehicle is approximately Rs. 43,00,000/. 23. On perusal of the record, it appears that the order for confiscation of the said vehicle was made on 25.02.2023. As per rule 62 of the Rules, 2004, the petitioner had the right to prefer revision before the respondent no. 3 within 60 days from the date of information of the order dated 25.02.2023. The petitioner had also availed the said remedy by filing revision application on 22.03.2023 i.e. well within the period of limitation. Despite that, the respondent no. 5 put the said vehicle to auction on 08.03.2023 i.e., much prior to the end of limitation period. Even, no personal notice was served to the petitioner before putting the said vehicle to auction. Pursuant to 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 8 | P a g e the auction, the said vehicle was also delivered to the intervener being the auction purchaser of the said vehicle. Finally, the revision filed by the petitioner was allowed vide order as contained in memo no.1166 of 16.05.2025 i.e., after two years of completing the auction. In the said order, the respondent no. 3 observed that the respondent no. 4 was not the competent authority to pass the order of confiscation in view of the order dated 25.04.2024 passed in W.P. (Cr.) No. 751 of 2023. The respondent no. 3 thus remanded the matter back to the respondent no. 4 with the instruction to release the said vehicle in favour of the petitioner after realizing payable royalty/penalty/other tax as per the provision of the Rules, 2004. 24. On the one hand, the claim of the Intervener is that in addition to auction price of the said vehicle i.e., Rs. 20,78,500/-, he has made additional expense of Rs. 22,50,000/- on the said vehicle whereas Rs. 26,57,633/- has only been paid to him in lieu of return of the said vehicle. Thus, irreparable loss and injury have been caused to him for no fault on his part. The claim of the petitioner on the other hand, is that the said vehicle was illegally put to auction on 08.03.2023 and after handing over the vehicle to the Intervener, he used the said vehicle for about three years and the vehicle is now being handing over to the petitioner in a dilapidated condition for which no compensation is being paid to him. It is further claimed that the total financial liability arising out of the loan obtained to purchase the said 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 9 | P a g e vehicle is approximately Rs. 84,00,000/- inclusive of interest and as such the petitioner must be compensated for the illegal auction of the said vehicle. 25. So far the petitioner’s claim for compensation is concerned, we are of the view that the said claim cannot be adjudicated by this court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Assessment of quantum of compensation is a purely factual issue which requires leading of evidences by the parties and the same can only be determined by a competent fact-finding court. 26. Nonetheless, we also cannot outrightly ignore the admitted fact that the vehicle of the petitioner was put to auction without waiting for expiry of the statutory period for filing revision. There is nothing on record to suggest that any personal notice was served to be petitioner before putting the said vehicle to auction. Had the petitioner been served with a personal notice, he would have informed the respondents about the steps being taken by him to file the revision against the order dated 25.02.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4. Thus, the petitioner has suffered serious prejudice due to non-service of personal notice to him. 27. Though, the contention of the respondents is that a general notice for auction was published in the newspaper, the same, in our opinion, cannot be held as a proper service of notice to the petitioner as he could not have expected that his vehicle would be put to auction even prior to end of the statutory period for filing revision and thus to keep watch on the auction notice to 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 10 | P a g e be published in the newspaper. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, putting the said vehicle to auction sale prior to expiry of the statutory period to prefer revision, was itself illegal. It is well settled principle of law that the Right to Property is a constitutional right and no one can be deprived of his property except by following the due procedure established by law. Thus, the respondents have committed grave illegality in putting the vehicle to auction with unexplained haste. 28. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to pay a cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner in addition to handing over the said vehicle to him for the harassment suffered due to such illegality on the part of the respondents. 29. Now, coming to the claim of the intervenor regarding demand of Rs. 43,00,000/- in lieu of return of the said vehicle. The said claim of the intervenor also requires factual determination by a competent fact-finding court and thus the same cannot be entertained by this court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Moreover, it transpires from the facts of the case that the intervenor has used the said vehicle for about three years after purchasing it in auction and has certainly derived commercial gains out of it for these years. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2026 whereby it was decided to pay Rs.20,78,500/- with simple interest at the 2026:JHHC:21571-DB 11 | P a g e prevailing bank rate to the intervenor. As we have been informed that the intervenor has already been paid Rs.26,57,633/- in lieu of return of the said vehicle, the said amount, in our prima facie opinion, is reasonable for his suffering due to such action of the respondents. 30. For the reasons as aforesaid, the respondents are directed to deliver the said vehicle along with the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 31. The petitioner as well as the intervenor are at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent court of law, if they wish to seek further compensation from the respondents. 32. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. 33. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 22.07.2026 Vikas/A.F.R. Uploaded on 22.07.2026