JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2022-23 by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj by which the truck of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-10GB-2453 has been ordered to be confiscated and to be auctioned in exercise of the power under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on the basis of the written report inter alia submitted by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj alleging therein that the said truck of the petitioner was involved in transportation of minerals illegally on the basis of the forged challans, the minerals along with the said truck has been seized by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj and though show-cause notice was issued by the District Mining Officer, Sahibganj, to the vehicle’s owner, the same has not been responded to by the petitioner. The District Mining Officer, Sahibganj moved an application to the District inter alia Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj for confiscation of the said vehicle along with other vehicles. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in respect to the confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner being Truck bearing Registration No. BR-10GB-2453, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 in confiscation case No.03 of 2022-23 directing for subsequent auction of the said truck of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner in respect to the confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner being Truck bearing Registration No. BR-10GB-2453, the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 in confiscation case No.03 of 2022-23 directing for subsequent auction of the said truck of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the impugned order in exercise of the power under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj got no jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017; in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others and allied cases passed in W.P.(C) No.6788 of 2023 and allied cases dated 22.07.2024 wherein it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court that Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 has been ultra vires struck down being to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 . Thus, Rule 11(v) of the said Rules so far as it vests power to the Deputy Commissioner of each district to be the Confiscating Authority ultra vires was held to be the parent act and the constitution and has been struck down by the Division Bench of this court. Hence, it is submitted that the corollary of such judgment of the Division Bench of this court is that the Deputy Commissioner of any of the district in the State of Jharkhand has no power to initiate and decide the confiscation proceeding as the power vested upon the Deputy Commissioner has been struck down. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 16.08.2022 passed in exercise of the said power be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, it is submitted that the order dated 16.08.2022 passed in exercise of the said power be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others along with allied cases passed in W.P.(C) No.6788 of 2023 and allied cases dated 22.07.2024 (supra), wherein it has been categorically held by the Division Bench of this inter alia court that the power vested upon the Deputy Commissioner of each of the district of the State of Jharkhand by Rule 11(v) of the Jharkhand Minerals ultra (Prevention of illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017,is vires and has been struck down. So, in view of exercise of the power for said auction by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, having been passed by the order dated 16.08.2022, in absence of any valid provision of law; the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that in the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2022-23 by the respondent No.1- District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj ultra vires which is held to be and struck down by the Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s Aditya Enterprises & Others vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others along with allied cases (supra) ; this court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 16.08.2022 in connection with Confiscation Case No.03 of 2022-23 having been passed in exercise of power under 11(v) of the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of illegal Mining, ultra Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 which has already been declared vires and struck down, hence, the said impugned order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2022-23 is without any jurisdiction. Hence, the same is not sustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 16.08.2022 passed in Confiscation Case No.03 of 2022-23 by the District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj is quashed and set aside. 8. In the result, this Writ Petition (Cr.) is allowed.