Orissa High Court
Soumya Ranjan Mohanty vs The State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31580 of 2025
Soumya Ranjan Mohanty .... Petitioner(s)
Mr. Satyam Das Pattanaik, Adv.
-versus-
The State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 10.11.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner claiming himself to be the registered owner of the vehicle in question bearing registration No.OD-02-CA-6571 which is alleged to have been seized due to some unlawful activity, has sought for a direction from this Court to the Opposite Parties for releasing the said vehicle in his favour. Apart from the above, the Petitioner has also made the following prayer:-
"xxx xxx xxx
i) The illegal seizure proceeding by
Tahasildar, Niali and the subsequent proceedings under OMMC Rules initiated by the Mining Officer, Jagatpur against Petitioner's vehicle Bharat Benz (Hyva Signature Not Verified Truck) bearing registration No.OD-02-CA- Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant 6571 shall not be quashed;
Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22 Page 1 of 4
ii) The Opposite Party authorities shall not be directed to pay the compensation amount of the loss which has occurred due to the illegal and arbitrary act of the Opposite Party authorities;
xxx xxx xxx"
3. Heard.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue in the case of Rajkishore Rout Vrs. State of Odisha and Ors. vide judgment dated 17.10.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23888 of 2025. He, in the process, submits that since this Writ Petition arises out of an issue of similar nature, this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Rajkishore Rout (Supra).
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that she 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 the 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. It is, accordingly, directed that the above noted seized vehicle shall be released in favour of the Petitioner (registered owner) forthwith, subject to the conditions that the Petitioner:-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA
Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22 Page 2 of 4
(i) shall produce the original Registration Certificate, valid insurance, and any other relevant documents of the seized vehicle before the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer, Attested copies of these documents shall be retained on record;
(ii) 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;
(iii) shall furnish recent photographs of the vehicle from multiple angles before release;
(iv) shall furnish a security bond of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) in the form of property security or cash/bank guarantee before the authority concerned;
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;
(v) shall not allow the vehicle to be used for any illegal purpose; and
(vi) shall produce the seized vehicle in the court or before the authority concerned as and when required;
7. In case of violation of any of the above conditions by the Petitioner, the entire amount shall be forfeited and will be deposited with the Odisha Police Relief and Welfare Fund and this order would not be applicable.
8. Additionally, the Opposite Parties/authorities Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA (particularly the Mining Officer, Cuttack and any other Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22 Page 3 of 4 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 right is 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. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Ayaskanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Nov-2025 19:23:22 Page 4 of 4