Ankit Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Ankit Kumar, challenges the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 8,36,000/- through a Seizure Letter dated March 8, 2026, issued by the District Mining Officer, Jehanabad. The petitioner claims this penalty was imposed under Rule 56(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2024, due to a discrepancy in the quantity of mineral transported, which he attributes to a clerical/software error by the departmental operator. He asserts he had paid the full royalty for the actual quantity transported. The petitioner paid the penalty under protest and seeks its refund with interest, along with correction of departmental records regarding the vehicle's wheel configuration and disciplinary action against the responsible officer. The respondent State argues that internal transactions between private parties do not validate illegality and that the vehicle was found to be overloaded. The State also points out that an appeal remedy is available.
Held
The Court held that there is a dispute regarding the loading/unloading of materials and whether the vehicle was overloaded. These factual disputes can be adjudicated effectively through the appellate process. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks. The appellate authority is mandated to dispose of the appeal within three months. The Court also noted that if an appeal is filed, the private respondent, Rajendra and Sons Infra Pvt. Ltd., should also be heard. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the illegality of the penalty or the refund, deferring these to the appellate authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 8,36,000/- imposed on the petitioner under Rule 56(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2024, is arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction, given the petitioner's claim of a clerical/software error and payment of full royalty for the actual quantity transported? Petitioner's contentions: The penalty is illegal and arbitrary as the discrepancy arose from a departmental error, not illegal mining or transportation. Full royalty was paid for the actual mineral transported. The petitioner seeks refund of the penalty paid under duress, correction of records, and disciplinary action. Respondent's contentions: The vehicle was found to be overloaded when intercepted. Internal transactions between private parties do not cure the illegality. An appeal remedy is available to the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Rule 56(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER 2 09-07-2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to implead the Collector, Jehanabad as respondent no.08 in course of the day.
Heard the parties.
The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s): (i) for issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Writs, Order Order, or 2/4 direction/ directions to set aside imposition of the penalty of Rs. 8,36,000/ through issuance of Seizure Letter 08-03-2026 (Annexure without speaking order imposed under Rule 56(2) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession Prevention of legal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2024, which pas paid by petitioner under protest through E Challan (BTC-4) dated 09-03-20264 GRN No. BHR20260309142222047759M, being arbitrary, illegal, and without juri iction despite the fact that the Petitioner had paid fall and complete royalty for the actual quantity of mineral transported, and the discrepancy in the challan arose solely on account of a clerical/software error committed by the departmental operator; (ii) for issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Writs, Order Order, or direction/ directions, directing the Respondents to refund the penalty amount of Rs. 8,36,000/- paid under duress and protest by the Petitioner, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thom the date of payment till the date of refund; (iii) for Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any 3/4 other appropriate Writ Writs, Order Onder, or direction/ directions, directing Respondents to correct the departmental records contained in Seizure Letter 08-03-2026 (Annexure-P/3) to reflect the actual wheel configuration of the vehicle (18- wheeler, not 22-wheeler) and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the officer responsible for the said erroneous recording; (iv)and for any other reliefs/reliefs for which the petitioners are 4. The claim of the petitioner with the help of paragraph-14 is that it was illegal incorporation of the weight by the respondent no.07 which led to the seizure of the vehicle and realizing the mistake on 11.03.2026 itself, the respondent no.07 transferred Rs. five lakhs to the petitioner’s account.
A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office, Jehanabad and with the help of paragraph-26, learned State counsel submits that the internal transaction between the private parties cannot be a ground to stamp the illegality and the vehicle when intercepted was found to be overloaded.
Further, with the help of paragraph-28 the submission is that the appeal remedy is available before the petitioner.
4/4
This Court is of the view that there is dispute on the loading/unloading/the materials that was earlier put on weight but later, was found to be overloaded. These facts can very well adjudicated as and when the petitioner prefers an appeal before the appellate authority.
Needless to add, if any appeal is filed on the allegation made by the petitioner, the respondent no.07, Rajendra and Sons Infra Pvt. Ltd., Patna be also heard.
Let the petitioner prefers an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of four weeks. The appellate authority shall be disposing of the appeal within a period of three months.
The writ petition is disposed of.
Ravi/- (Rajiv Roy, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.