[MMDR Act] Deputy Commissioner-Cum-District Magistrate Not Competent Authority To Order Confiscation Of Commercial Vehicle: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate is not a competent authority to order the confiscation of a commercial vehicle.

Justice Rajesh Kumar presiding over the case observed, “Considering the fact that the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate is not a competent authority to pass the order of confiscation. Accordingly, the order dated 08.07.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum- District Magistrate, Latehar in Confiscation Case No.57 of 2023 in connection with Balumath P.S. Case No.44 of 2023 is, hereby, quashed and set- aside.”

The criminal writ petition was filed seeking to quash the Deputy Commissioner's order of confiscation of the petitioner's commercial vehicle, arguing that it was made without proper jurisdiction as specified under Section 21 (4A) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act (MMDR Act).

The petition further requested the release of the confiscated vehicle. A criminal case had been registered against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 379, 414, and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 30(ii) of the Coal Mines Act, Sections 21(4), (4A), and (5) of the MMDR Act, and Rule 13 of the Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. This case is pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latehar.

The petitioner's counsel asserted that the petitioner is the legitimate owner of the vehicle, which had been seized by the police, and that the vehicle was not involved in any illegal activity. It was also argued that the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate did not have the legal authority to issue the confiscation order under Section 21(4-A) of the MMDR Act. In support of this argument, the counsel referenced a prior judgment by the High Court dated January 8, 2024, in W.P.(Cr.) No. 751 of 2023, which had addressed the same issue.

The Court therefore allowed the writ petition while directing, “The petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned court below for release of the vehicle. If any such application is filed, then the court below is directed to consider the same on its own merit and shall take a decision as early as possible.”

Case Title: Shahid Ansari Vs. State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 78

Counsel For the Petitioner: Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Om, Advocate Mr. Haroon Rasheed, Advocate

Counsel For the State: Ms. Rishi Bharati, A.C to A.A.G.-III

Click Here To Read The Judgement