Vikram Bajaj vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Held

The Court held that it was not necessary to delve into the validity of the seizure itself. The appropriate authority should consider the petitioner's submissions and the produced documents during the final adjudication of the notice or summary proceedings. However, the Court found it imperative to release the truck, which had been seized since February 2020, to prevent its further deterioration due to prolonged stationary condition. The petition was allowed, and the truck was ordered to be released to its registered owner on superdari, subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate, on usual terms and conditions. The Court also directed respondents No. 1 and 2 to dispose of the pending proceedings expeditiously.

Facts

The petitioner, Vikram Bajaj, operating M/s Bajaj Goods Carrier, seeks the release of his truck (registration No. HR45C-6590) seized by the Mining Officer, Mines and Geology Department, Ambala. The seizure occurred on February 2, 2020, with the truck allegedly involved in illegal mining and loaded with "bajri". The petitioner claims the "bajri" was validly purchased from Diwan Stone Crusher, Mubarikpur, evidenced by invoice Annexure P-1, and was en route to Karnal. Despite submitting a representation with proof to the Mining Department, no action was taken. The truck has been in possession since February 2, 2020, and further detention risks deterioration. The petitioner is willing to furnish superdari bonds.

Key Issues

1. Whether the truck bearing registration No. HR45C-6590, seized on 02.02.2020, should be released on superdari to the petitioner, Vikram Bajaj, pending adjudication of the alleged illegal mining charges under Sub-rule 104 of State Mining Rule, 2012 read with Section 21(4) of Mines and Minerals(D&R) Act, 1957? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the "bajri" loaded on the truck was validly purchased, supported by invoice Annexure P-1. He argues that the truck has been seized since February 2, 2020, and its continued detention will lead to deterioration. He has also submitted a representation with supporting documents to the respondents, which has not been addressed. The petitioner is ready to comply with any superdari conditions. Respondents' arguments: The State counsel initially objected to the release. However, when confronted with the invoice, they submitted it was not provided at the time of seizure or subsequently. They raised a concern that releasing the truck might hinder the recovery of compensation or fine if imposed after adjudication.