Jharkhand High Court
M/S Shree Bholey Alloys Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 September, 2021
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 77 of 2021
1. M/s SHREE BHOLEY ALLOYS PVT. LTD., having its registered
office at Phase 4/C (P) 3, Bokaro Industrial Area Balidih, through its
Director Rakesh Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years, s/o Satyanand
Singh, R/s Plot No. 95, Lohanchal Colony, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Steel
City, District-Bokaro-827012 (Jharkhand).
2. S.P. Singh @ Sanjay Kumar, aged about 35 years, s/o Nand Kishore
Prasad, R/o Basant Vihar Colony, Near Dhangi More, Koyla Nagar,
BCCL Township, Kalakusuma, P.O. & P.S.-Koyla Bhawan, District-
Dhanbad (Jharkhand).
..... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Collector, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District-Bokaro
(Jharkhand).
3. The District Mining Officer, Bokaro, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District-
Bokaro (Jharkhand).
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha & N.K. Pasari. Advocates.
For the State : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, G.A.-II.
------
08/ 27.09.2021 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II for the State.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at the outset confined his prayer with respect to prayer Nos. 1(e) and 1(f) of the writ petition, which reads as under:-
"1(e) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, for quashing the order dated 12.02.2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, in Balidih P.S. Case No. 111 of 2020, wbereby the application for release, filed by the petitioners, were rejected on the ground of initiation of confiscation proceeding.
1(f) Consequent upon being satisfied, the vehicle and the minerals loaded on the vehicle be directed to be released forthwith and the confiscation proceeding initiated vide case No. 22 of 2020 be quashed and set aside."
4. The FIR was lodged on the following premises:-
The prosecution story as has been narrated in the FIR is that -2- on 03.06.2020, a truck bearing No. JH-09-AL-1324 carrying Manganese (Approx 20.0 ton) was being transported to the factory premises of the petitioner no. 1, the said truck belongs to petitioner no. 2.
The truck was intercepted by the respondent no. 3 and after carrying out necessary enquiry, although duly certified by the District Mining Officer, Jabalpur about permits having been issued for carrying out transportation of the Manganese from a local vendor at Jabalpur. It was also enquired as to whether royalty was paid to the State of Madhya Pradesh or not, proof of which could not be produced by the petitioner as alleged and hence, respondent No. 2 in purported exercise of power treating the goods to be stolen, seized the vehicle along with goods and stranded the vehicle at local police station at Bokaro.
Based on these facts an FIR was registered on 26.06.2020 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Rule 54 of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 by the respondent No. 2.
5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not challenging the vires of any provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 read with Jharkhand Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. He submits that the petitioner is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its place of business at different places. He further submits that a show cause has been asked by letter dated 04.06.2020 asking the clarification, as to why without transit challan the minerals were being transported and the petitioner filed his reply to the said show cause on 29.5.2020. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner filed a petition for release of the minerals and the vehicles, which was rejected by order dated 12.02.2021 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bokaro, in Balidih P.S. Case No. 111 of 2020.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction in this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the amendment in Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the same was incorporated in -3- Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017 by virtue of Rule-13 thereof, the order may kindly be passed.
8. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned G.A.-II, appearing for the State submits that in the light of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004, the petitioner is required to pay the double amount of the minerals and the arrangement has been granted in the said Rule. He further submits that for release of the minerals and the vehicle, the petitioner is required to follow the procedure as an interim measure.
9. Admittedly, the minerals and vehicle of the petitioner were seized on 4.6.2020 and the petitioner filed an application for release of the minerals and the vehicle, but the same was rejected on 12.2.2021, however the said rejection was on the assumption that the confiscation proceeding is going on and that's why the release of the said minerals and vehicle was rejected by the concerned Court.
10. There is no bar in the Mines & Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 for releasing the vehicles and the minerals in the Statute, however, in the other Statute i.e. the Indian Forest Act, there is direct bar under Section 52(c) of the said Act.
11. Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004 is amended by Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which reads as under:-
^^;fn fdlh okgu dk dksbZ pkyd y?kq [kfut dks ifjogu djrs le; l{ke inkf/kdkjh vFkok funs'kd] [kku vFkok vij funs'kd] [kku vFkok mi funs'kd] [kku vFkok ftyk@lgk;d [kuu inkf/kdkjh vFkok lekgrkZ vFkok lekgrkZ ;k jkT; ljdkj n~okjk izkf/kd`r fdlh inkf/kdkjh dks izi= ^,e* vFkok >kj[k.M [kfut leuqnku fu;ekoyh] 2004 ds vUrxZr QkeZ Mh esa ifjogu pkyku fn[kkus esa vlQy jgrk gS vFkok fujh{k.k ls bUdkj djrk gS] rks mls vf/kdre 01 o'kZ dh dSn vFkok [kfut ewY; dh nksxquh jkf'k ds cjkcj n.M vFkok nksuksa ,d lkFk n.M fn;k tk ldrk gS rFkk nwljh ,oa rhljh ckj oS/k ifjogu pkyku izLrqr ugha fd, tkus ij mijksDr ds vfrfjDr n.M dh jkf'k Øe'k% 50]000-00 ¼ipkl gtkj :i;s ,oa 1]00]000@ ¼,d yk[k½ :i;s gksxhA tk¡p djus okys inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogu djrs ik;s tkus ij okgu dks [kfut lfgr tIr fd;k tk,xk rFkk ftls fdlh ljdkjh izfr"Bku esa vFkok LFkkfu; Fkkuk izkax.k esa lqjf{kr j[kk tk,xkA l{ke inkf/kdkjh n~okjk voS/k ifjogudrkZ ds mijksDr n.M 'kqYd ,oa bl vk'k; dk ca/k i= ¼Bond Paper½ lefiZr fd, tkus ij fd U;k;ky; n~okjk uksfVl fn, tkus ij mifLFkr gksaxs] okgu dks [kfut lfgr NksM+k tk ldrk gS] ijUrq voS/k ifjogudrkZ ij fu;ekuqdwy dkjZokbZ gsrq bldh lwpuk U;k;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh dks nh tk,xhA ca/k i= dk izi= funs'kd] [kku n~okjk vyx ls ifjpkfyr fd;k tk,xkA -4-
12. On perusal of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, it transpires that the minerals can be released on payment of double amount of the cost of the minerals, to be deposited before the competent authority. As such, the petitioner is allowed to deposit the double amount in terms of Rule 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, which provides for releasing of the minerals after depositing the double amount of the cost of the minerals.
13. In view of Rules 54(5) of the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Amendment Rules, 2017, by way of interim order, the following orders are being passed:-
(i) The petitioner shall deposit the double amount of the cost of the minerals before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.
(ii) If the amount in question shall be deposited for the release of the said minerals, the said minerals shall be released forthwith without prejudice to the right and contention of the petitioner, subject to the final result of the criminal proceedings.
14. So far as the release of the vehicle is concerned, the same shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below.
(ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
(iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner.
(iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner.
(v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court or before the confiscating authority.
15. The aforesaid conditions are the subject to the final result of the confiscation proceeding and the criminal proceedings.
16. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-