M/S. Lagna Traders vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

M/S. Lagna Traders vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ....... Opposite ... on 9 January, 2026

Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                  W.P.(C) No. 468 of 2026
                             M/S. Lagna Traders, Cuttack               ........  Petitioner(s)
                                                              Mr. Prabodha Chandra Nayak, Adv.

                                                         -Versus-
                             State of Odisha & Ors.                        ....... Opposite Party(s)
                                                                         Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA
                                     CORAM:
                                     DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
                                                    ORDER

09.01.2026 Order No.

01.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction for release of a Bharatbenz Hiwa bearing Registration No. OD11AH6651, which, according to the Petitioner, has been illegally seized and detained by the Krushnachandrapur Police Outpost, without authority of law and disregard of due process, rendering the said action unsustainable in law.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23888 of 2025 (Rajkishore Rout vrs. State of Odisha and Ors.) Hence, he submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Rajkishore Rout (supra).

Signed by: LITARAM MURMU

Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 14:13:00 2

5. Learned counsel for the State submit that he has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Rajkishore Rout (supra).

6. On perusal of the records and the judgment passed in the case of Rajkishore Rout (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment which was disposed of on 17.10.2025. The ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows:

" xxx xxx xxx

16. In light of the comprehensive exposition of the law provided above, it is directed that the detained vehicle (Tata Signa Hyva Truck bearing Registration No. OD-05-BY-3505) shall be released in favor of the petitioner (registered owner) forthwith, subject to the following conditions which the petitioner must fulfill to the satisfaction of the competent authority:

(a) The petitioner shall produce the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle, valid insurance, and any other relevant documents before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer. Attested copies of these documents shall be retained on record

(b) The petitioner shall not change the colour or any identifying part of the vehicle (engine or chassis number) and shall not transfer or sell the vehicle to any third party without permission of the Court

(c) The petitioner will furnish recent photographs of the vehicle from multiple angles before release

(d) The petitioner shall furnish a security bond of ₹2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the form of property security or cash/bank guarantee to ensure production of the vehicle as and when required. This amount is fixed taking into account the nature of the vehicle and the potential penalty for the alleged violation; it is subject to adjustment by the authorities if any statutory rule specifically prescribes a higher penalty or security for such release.

(e) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the competent authority or Court whenever called upon during the inquiry or trial of the alleged offense.

Signature Not Verified Failure to produce the vehicle or violation of any of the above conditions will Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 14:13:00 3

entail cancellation of this release order and consequences in accordance with law.

17. Additionally, the Opposite Party authorities (particularly the Mining Officer, Cuttack and any other competent authority under the OMMC Rules) are directed to initiate and conclude appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in a time-bound manner. If the intent is to levy a penalty under Rule 51(1)(xi) of the OMMC Rules, such penalty notice should be issued forthwith, so that the petitioner may contest it or comply by payment.

18. If the State intends to prosecute the petitioner under the MMDR Act and OMMC Rules, then a proper complaint under Section 22 of the MMDR Act should be filed before the jurisdictional court without further delay. In either scenario, no further unjustified delay shall be tolerated. The entire process should be carried to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. This direction is necessary to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the petitioner's rights are not kept in abeyance indefinitely. The authorities shall also bear in mind the mandate of the Supreme Court that seized property must be preserved, not destroyed by inaction.

19. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed."

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23888 of 2025, this Court is inclined to accede to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is directed that the detained vehicle (Bharatbenz Hiwa bearing Registration No. OD11AH6651) shall be released in favor of the petitioner (registered owner) forthwith, subject to the following conditions which the petitioner must fulfill to the satisfaction of the competent authority:

(a) The petitioner shall produce the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle, valid insurance, and any other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 14:13:00 4 relevant documents before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer. Attested copies of these documents shall be retained on record

(b) The petitioner shall not change the colour or any identifying part of the vehicle (engine or chassis number) and shall not transfer or sell the vehicle to any third party without permission of the Court

(c) The petitioner will furnish recent photographs of the vehicle from multiple angles before release

(d) The petitioner shall furnish a security bond of ₹2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) in the form of property security or cash/bank guarantee to ensure production of the vehicle as and when required. This amount is fixed taking into account the nature of the vehicle and the potential penalty for the alleged violation;

it is subject to adjustment by the authorities if any statutory rule specifically prescribes a higher penalty or security for such release.

(e) The petitioner shall produce the vehicle before the competent authority or Court whenever called upon during the inquiry or trial of the alleged offense. Failure to produce the vehicle or violation of any of the above conditions will entail cancellation of this release order and Signature Not Verified consequences in accordance with law. Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 14:13:00 5

8. Additionally, the Opposite Party authorities (particularly the Mining Officer, Mayurbhanj and any other competent authority under the OMMC Rules) are directed to initiate and conclude appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in a time-bound manner. If the intent is to levy a penalty under Rule 51(1)(xi) of the OMMC Rules, such penalty notice should be issued forthwith, so that the petitioner may contest it or comply by payment.

9. If the State intends to prosecute the petitioner under the MMDR Act and OMMC Rules, then a proper complaint under Section 22 of the MMDR Act should be filed before the jurisdictional court without further delay. In either scenario, no further unjustified delay shall be tolerated. The entire process should be carried to its logical conclusion as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks from today. This direction is necessary to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the petitioner's rights are not kept in abeyance indefinitely. The authorities shall also bear in mind the mandate of the Supreme Court that seized property must be preserved, not destroyed by inaction.

10.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Murmu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: LITARAM MURMU Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Jan-2026 14:13:00

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court