Md Raisuddin Sk vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Md. Raisuddin Sk., is the owner of a seized truck (Regn. No. NL-01-N-4583) involved in Amrapara P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020. The case was registered under Sections 9(i)/13(i)(ii) of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, following the seizure of sand-loaded trucks for alleged discrepancies in transportation challans and GST bills. The petitioner's application for the release of the seized vehicle and minerals was rejected by the ACJM, Pakur, on July 24, 2020. A subsequent revision petition filed by the petitioner against this order was also dismissed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pakur, on August 28, 2020. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Held

The Court held that there is no statutory bar in the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, for releasing vehicles and minerals, unlike the Indian Forest Act. The Court referred to Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which allows for the release of minerals upon payment of double the amount of their cost. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitioner to deposit double the amount of the cost of the minerals before the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, for the release of the minerals, subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. For the release of the vehicle, the petitioner was directed to furnish an indemnity bond, provide a surety who is a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle in Pakur, and undertake not to sell, mortgage, transfer, or tamper with the vehicle's identification. The vehicle is to be produced as and when directed by the Trial Court or confiscating authority. These conditions are also subject to the final result of the confiscation and criminal proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the seized vehicle and minerals in light of the provisions of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2017, and the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004? The petitioner argued that the order of rejection of the release petition by the lower courts was erroneous. He contended that Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, as incorporated into the 2017 Rules, provides for the release of seized minerals and vehicles under certain conditions, specifically mentioning the payment of double the amount of minerals. The petitioner sought to invoke this provision for the release of his vehicle and minerals. The State, through the Spl.P.P., argued that for the release of minerals, the petitioner is required to pay double the amount of the minerals as per Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. For the release of the vehicle and minerals, the petitioner must follow the procedure as an interim measure.