Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 355 (RAJ)

Shyamji v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-07

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioners by this writ petition has sought a direction to quash the proceedings for seizure of the vehicle which was seized by the authorities of the Mining Department on 02.06.1989. He has also sought a direction to release the vehicle which was seized. The petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle (Dumper No. GQY-4430). The aforesaid vehicle was seized by the respondent No. 2 on 02.06.1989. The vehicle which was seized was handed over to the police station Shambhupura, District - Chittorgarh. The contention of the petitioner is that the vehicle has been seized against certain dues pertaining to M/s. National Construction Company to whom he is not at all concern. He has further stated that while making seizure of the vehicle the procedure prescribed under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 48 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1986) was not adhered. To substantiate this contention the Counsel for the petitioner stated that before approaching to this Honble Court he preferred an application under Section 451, CrPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh for release of the vehicle but the application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the ground that no report of seizure was made to his Court as required under Sub-rule (5) of the Rule 48 of the Rules of 1986. 2. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the vehicle was seized by the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) Chittorgarh on account of certain dues against M/s. National Construction Company nothing has been stated in the reply as to how the respondents connected the vehicle owned by the present petitioner with National Construction Company. Nothing is stated in reply to the writ petition that whether copy of the report making seizure of the vehicle was sent or not by the Assistant Mining Engineer (Recovery) to his superior officer and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area to trial the offence. Section 48(5) of the Act of 1986 empowers the authorities of the Mining Department to seize mineral, tool equipment, vehicle or everything which is used without lawful authority or in contravention of terms and conditiop ns of the mining lease/quarry licence. Section 48(5) of the Act of 1986 empowers the authorities of the Mining Department to seize mineral, tool equipment, vehicle or everything which is used without lawful authority or in contravention of terms and conditiop ns of the mining lease/quarry licence. In the present case nothing has been said in reply to the writ petition by the respondents as to how the vehicle which was seized on 02.06.1989 was found involved in contravention of the terms and conditions of mining lease/quarry licence. In totality of the facts there is gross violation of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 48 of the Act of 1986. 3. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds. The seizure of the vehicle is declared illegal. The respondent is directed to release the vehicle forthwith. A cost of Rs. 5,000/-is awarded in favour of the petitioner.