Chandan Kumar AkelaversusThe State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.846 of 2024
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2024 Thana- AWTARNAGAR District- Saran
     ======================================================
     Chandan Kumar Akela, Son of Tarkeshwar Ray, Resident of Village- Santha,
     P.S.- Garkha, District- Saran, Bihar

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                          Versus

1.   The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar Patna,
     Bihar
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Mines Commissioner, Patna, Bihar
3.   The District Mining Officer, Saran, District- Saran, Bihar
4.   The Station House Officer, Awtarnagar Police Station, District- Saran, Bihar
5.   The Investigating Officer of Awatarnagar P.S. Case No. 42/2024 dated
     22.02.2024, Awatarnagar Police Station, District- Saran, Bihar
                                                                                      .
                                                                    .. ... Respondent/s

     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :      Ms. Chhaya Kirti, Advocate
                                    Mr.Saket Anand, Advocate
     For the State           :      Mr.G.P.-20
     For the Deptt. Of Mines :      Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Advocate
                                    Mr. Utsav Anand, Advocate

     ======================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA

                                    CAV JUDGMENT
      Date : 29-01-2026

                  The petitioner has filed the present writ petition

      seeking following reliefs :

                        “(i) To issue an appropriate writ in the
                        nature of mandamus or any other writ(s),
                        order(s),   direction(s)     for    issuance     of
                        direction to the respondent authorities to
                        release the Vehicle i.e. a Diesel TATA Truck
                        bearing       registration         number        as
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           2/17




                          BR04GA8399,                   Chasis            No.-
                          MAT466416B2N25750 in favor of petitioner,
                          which was seized by Respondent no.-4.
                          (ii) To issue an appropriate writ in the nature
                          of mandamus or any other writ(s), order(s),
                          direction(s) to the concerned respondent to
                          cancel/quash        the       F.I.R.   lodged    as
                          Awatarnagar P.S. Case No.-42/2024 dated
                          22.02.2024 under Section 379, 411 of The
                          Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of MMDR
                          Act and Section 56 of Bihar Illegal Minerals
                          Mining Act.
                          (iii) Any other relief(s) for which the
                          petitioner is found entitled to”.


                    2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present

         writ petition are that the petitioner is stated to be the owner of a

         Diesel TATA Truck bearing Registration No. BR-04GA-8399,

         Chassis No. MAT466416B2N25750. The petitioner is engaged

         in transportation business. The petitioner claims that he

         possessed a prepaid pass/challan issued by the Government of

         Bihar, explicitly authorizing the transportation of yellow sand

         within the specified time frame starting from 09:52:17 AM of

         22.02.2024 till 09:52:17 A.M of 23.02.2024.

                    3. Further case of the petitioner is that while the driver

         of the petitioner had been lawfully carrying out his duty of

         transporting yellow sand well within permitted limit, police

         officials stopped him around 7.00 P.M. on 22.02.2024 and
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           3/17




         proceeded to seize the vehicle. Subsequently, Awatarnagar P.S.

         Case No. 42/2024 dated 22.02.2024 for the offences punishable

         under Sections 379, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 4 of

         Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

         (hereinafter referred to as 'MMDR Act') and Section 56 of Bihar

         Mineral       (Concession,         Prevention   of   Illegal   Mining,

         Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to

         '2019 Rules'), has been lodged against the vehicle and its driver.

                    4. From the FIR, it appears the vehicle was seized due

         to overloading and the driver was apprehended. The petitioner

         has approached this Court for quashing of Awatarnagar P.S.

         Case No. 42/2024 and for release of his vehicle in question.

                    5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

         the respondent no. 4 has arbitrarily seized the vehicle of the

         petitioner, who is bonafide owner of the vehicle in question and

         is engaged in business of transportation. For carrying sand on

         the said vehicle, the petitioner has got a valid challan and the

         driver was carrying the same. The validity period commenced at

         9:52:17 A.M. on 22.02.2024 and it would have continued till

         9:52:17 A.M. on 23.02.2024. Therefore, no offence as

         mentioned in the FIR is made out against the petitioner or his

         driver. The whole case of the prosecution is based on the

         presumption that the vehicle of the petitioner was overloaded
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           4/17




         and had been carrying sand exceeding the limit permitted in the

         challan issued for the transportation. Even the seizure memo

         was prepared without following the due procedure and without

         weighing the sand. No independent witness was joined during

         the seizure, which is a procedural requirement mandated by law.

         The authority further failed to provide the copy of the seizure

         memo to the co-accused driver of the vehicle and, therefore, it

         casts serious doubt on the credibility and authenticity of the

         seizure memo.

                    6. The learned counsel further submitted that there is

         complete non-compliance of Rule 60 (2) of the 2019 Rules. No

         doubt Rule 60 (1) provides that any of the Officers mentioned in

         Rule 59 may stop any carrier, vehicle or vessel carrying minor

         minerals, to check for verification of the contents . At the same

         time, Rule 60 (2) provides that in case such Officer prima facie

         finds that the load of the carrier, vehicle or vessel, is more than

         the permitted quantity and/or challan, he may require the driver

         of the carrier, vehicle, vessel, to take such carrier, vehicle, vessel

         to the nearest weighbridge and get the contents weighed at the

         expense of the driver or the owner of such vehicle/carrier/

         vessel. So, this provision was not adhered to and the vehicle was

         never weighed on any weighbridge. Therefore, absence of

         weighing not only shows lack of adherence to standard
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           5/17




         procedures but also raises questions regarding the necessity and

         legitimacy of the seizure. In support of his contention, learned

         counsel referred to a decision dated 06.02.2025 passed in

         Cr.W.J.C.No. 1074 of 2024 by the learned Coordinate Bench of

         this Court.

                    7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

         behalf of Department of Mines vehemently contended that there

         is no occasion to quash the FIR and the vehicle of the petitioner

         has been rightly seized. The learned counsel further submitted

         that the driver of the vehicle did not show any challan for

         transportation of sand. However, from the copy of challan

         annexed with the writ petition, it appears that the challan was

         for transportation of 512.500 CFT of sand, but the vehicle was

         found carrying 800 CFT of sand. Therefore, the petitioner is

         liable to be penalized under Section 56 (1) of the Rules.

                    8. The learned counsel further submitted that the driver

         of the vehicle in question was knowing about this fact and for

         this reason he fled away from the spot without showing the

         challan and he was subsequently arrested and taken into

         custody. Therefore, the vehicle was seized on 22.02.2024 for

         overloading of the sand beyond the limits of challan.

                    9. The learned counsel further submitted that the truck

         of the petitioner was seized in the district of Saran, Chapra
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           6/17




         which has consistently been identified as a highly sensitive and

         volatile area in matter relating to sand mining and its

         enforcement. Whenever any official of the Mining Department

         or the enforcement team proceed to seize a vehicle involved in

         illegal transportation of the sand, persons with vested interest

         and local miscreants gather at the spot, create unruly scene and

         actively obstruct the lawful action of the official. Several FIRs

         have been registered in past against persons, who attempted to

         prevent or disrupt seizure operations by the Mining Department

         in Saran district. On the alleged date of occurrence, when the

         vehicle of the petitioner was intercepted, then in a short span of

         time, local persons started assembling at the spot and the

         situation worsened. The officials, considering the past history of

         seizure in that area, acted swiftly and decisively in order to

         avoid escalation into a full blown law and order situation. The

         enforcement        team      carried     out   an   on-spot   volumetric

         measurement of the sand loaded on the truck by adopting the

         standard cubic calculation method (length x breadth x height)

         with the aid of a measuring tape. This procedure, which is

         widely accepted and is also practical, enabled the officials to

         promptly assess the load without having to shift the vehicle

         elsewhere, which could have aggravated the tense situation.

         Moreover, the nearest weighbridge was located at a substantial
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           7/17




         distance from the place where the interception occurred. Given

         the sensitive nature of area and to avoid volatile situation, as

         crowd had started to gather, it was not practicable to transport

         the seized vehicle to any distant place. Under such

         circumstances, taking the truck to weighbridge would have

         escalated the law and order problem and would have exposed

         the officials and public at large to unnecessary risk. It was,

         therefore, a matter of safety and administrative prudence to

         conduct the measurement of the sand immediately on the spot.

         So, not approaching the Dharamkanta (weighbridge), was not

         an omission but a deliberate and reasonable course of action in

         the prevailing circumstances.

                    10. The learned counsel further submitted that it is not

         necessary in all cases to take the vehicle to weighbridge and to

         get the contents weighed as the circumstances compelled the

         officials to resort to alternative method of measurement by

         volumetric measurement of the sand loaded on the truck by

         adopting the standard cubic calculation method, which is quite

         accurate and time savings.

                    11. The learned counsel reiterated that the adoption of

         cubic measurement at site is a viable, lawful and transparent

         method available to ascertain the quantity of sand in the

         petitioner’s truck. The sand load was assessed on the spot by
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           8/17




         physical cubic measurement with the aid of a measuring tape.

         Since sand being a loose mineral varies in weight with moisture

         and other conditions, it makes weighbridge results less reliable

         than volumetric assessment. Further corroboration of the

         correctness of the quantity of sand assessed at the time of

         seizure is evident from the letter of guarantee (Zimmanama)

         executed contemporaneously when the vehicle was handed over

         for safe custody. The seized vehicle along with 800 CFT of sand

         was entrusted for safe custody to M/s Mili Enterprises,

         Proprietor Swarn Kumar, son of Umesh Kumar Dixit in

         pursuance of a valid letter of guarantee issued under the orders

         of the District Magistrate. The document clearly mentions the

         particulars of seized truck and the exact quantity of sand loaded

         therein. The very fact that the authorized custodian accepted

         custody of vehicle with the recorded load, without raising any

         protest or objection, strongly corroborates the accuracy of the

         measurement carried out by the department at the time of

         seizure. If there has been any discrepancy in the recorded load

         of 800 CFT of sand, the custodian could have refused to accept

         the truck along with sand. The fact that custodian accepted

         custody of the vehicle and the recorded quantity of sand without

         protest or reservation is a strong and independent corroboration

         that the measurement of 800 CFT carried out by the department
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                           9/17




         at the time of seizure was correct and accurate.

                    12. The learned counsel further submitted that penalty

         of Rs. 2,84,960/- imposed on the petitioner can never be said to

         be arbitrary or excessive. This amount has been arrived at by

         applying the rate of royalty under Rule 51(1)(b) together with

         the multiplier prescribed under Rule 56. Therefore, the

         assessment of financial liability in this case has been made

         strictly as per the statutory mandate, leaving no scope for

         alleging arbitrariness.

                    13. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as

         practicable, every care has been taken while preparing the

         seizure list. If the petitioner has any genuine grievance with

         respect to the measurement of sand at the time of seizure or with

         the quantum of penalty imposed, the proper and efficacious

         legal remedy available to the petitioner to prefer an appeal

         before the competent authority under Rule 67 of the 2019 Rules.

                    14. The learned counsel further submitted that

         interception and seizure of the vehicle of the petitioner and the

         assessment of the sand loaded on the vehicle were proper and

         valid and considering the facts and circumstances, the FIR

         cannot be quashed.

                    15. From the rival submission of the parties, the issue

         which arises before this Court is whether non-compliance of
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          10/17




         Rule 60 (2) of 2019 Rules would make the whole prosecution

         unsustainable considering the admitted fact that the petitioner

         was holding challan for transportation of yellow sand within the

         specified time framed from 22.02.2024 at 09:52:17 A.M. till

         23.02.2024 at 09:52:17 A.M. If the Rule 60 (2) of 2019 Rules is

         taken to be mandatory, then volumetric measurement of the sand

         loaded on the truck of the petitioner would not help the cause of

         the prosecution. However, if it is taken that Rule 60 (2) of 2019

         Rules is merely directory in nature and volumetric assessment

         of sand loaded on the vehicle of the petitioner is permissible to

         make out a case against the petitioner, then the present writ

         petition would liable to be dismissed.

                    16. Rule 60 of 2019 Rules reads as under :

                        “60. Power to stop and check any carrier,
                        transport or vessel.—
                        (1) Any of the Officers mentioned in Rule 59 may
                        stop any carrier, vehicle or vessel carrying minor
                        minerals, to check for verification of the contents.
                        (2) In case such Officer prima facie finds that the
                        load of the carrier, vehicle or vessel, is more than
                        the permitted quantity and / or challan, he may
                        require the driver of the carrier, vehicle, vessel, to
                        take such carrier, vehicle, vessel to the nearest
                        weighbridge and get the contents weighed at the
                        expense of the driver or the owner of such
                        vehicle/carrier/ vessel.
                        (3) If any person who refuses to obey the lawful
                        command of such Mining Officer shall be
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          11/17




                        prosecuted under these Rules”.


                    17. If this Rule is considered to be of such nature that

         no derogation is permissible, there may be situation when

         weighing on weighbridge might not be possible. There may be

         situation where weighbridge is not conveniently located or

         reachable or taking the vehicle/carrier to the weighbridge might

         give rise to law and order situation. A situation may also arise

         where use of weighbridge is out of question. In these

         circumstances, considering the Rule 60 (2) to be completely

         rigid and having no flexibility would defeat the whole purpose.

         On the other hand, if this Rule is considered to be merely

         directory, unscrupulous persons may take advantage of this

         flexibility and they may have a field day. This could not be the

         intention of the legislature.

                    18. Therefore, the intention of legislature needs to be

         gathered from the statutory provision. Rule 60 (2) of 2019 Rules

         provides that if the officer prima facie finds the load to be more

         than the permitted quantity, he may require the carrier to be

         taken to the nearest weighbridge and get the contents weighed.

         So, it appears to be a discretion given to the officer to take the

         carrier to the nearest weighbridge if he is prima facie of the

         opinion that the carrier has exceeded the permitted load. In

         general parlance, the word ‘may’ does not mean ‘must’ or
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          12/17




         ‘shall’. But there has been occasions when the word ‘may’ has

         been treated as ‘shall’. The construction of word ‘may’ as ‘shall’

         is permissible in cases where the extant of power is overriding

         and discretion cannot be left in the hands of a person who has to

         give effect to such statute. So, it all depends on the nature of

         power and the effect of the exercise of the power conferred by

         the statute. At the same time, the foremost rule of interpretation

         is literal rule of interpretation requiring courts to apply the

         exact, ordinary, grammatical meanings of words in a statute.

         Thus, the words are given their natural and popular meaning.

         This rule of interpretation is applied when the statutory

         language is unambiguous and clear. This rule can be given a go-

         bye only if such interpretation would lead to an absurd result.

                    19. Now, coming to the provisions of Rule 60 (2) of

         2019 Rules, it appears the legislature in its wisdom used the

         word ‘may’ and did not put any mandatory compliance for the

         officer concerned to take the carrier to any weighbridge. There

         appears no compulsion for the officer concerned who prima

         facie finds a case of overloading. The use of word ‘may’ gives a

         discretion to the officer concerned to adopt the option of

         weighing the carrier on weighbridge. It is one of the options and

         it could not be said that it is only option. Therefore, the officer

         concerned may take a call as to whether he would exercise the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          13/17




         option of weighbridge or adopt another method for calculating

         the quantity of laden minerals. Even from perusal of other

         provisions of 2019 Rules as existed on the date of occurrence,

         there is no material showing mandatory nature of Rule 60 (2).

                    20. If, considering the facts and circumstances, the

         officer concerned arrives at a decision that weighing or

         measurement of the minerals is not possible on weighbridge, he

         may adopt the other methods and seizure could not be stated to

         be bad only on the ground that the option of weighing on

         weighbridge was not exercised and the same is against the

         mandatory nature of Rule 60 (2). This discretion depends upon

         the facts and circumstances and a situation may arise where it

         would not be possible to make the weighing on weighbridge and

         the same would frustrate the cause of justice. No doubt,

         procedural safeguards are to be adhered to and if there is

         sufficient compliance of the same, the same would suffice for

         the purpose of Rule 60 (2).

                    21. Coming to the facts of the present case, the mineral

         is sand and allegation is overloading of the vehicle exceeding

         the challan weight. The respondent authorities took a volumetric

         measurement of the loaded sand on the vehicle of the petitioner

         and found it to be more than weight taken on weighbridge,

         considering the nature of minerals and time tested method of its
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          14/17




         measurement by calculating it on the basis of cubic method

         (length x breadth x height) gives a fairly accurate measurement

         of assessment. If such measurement has been taken and

         recorded, the petitioner should not have any grievance on this

         account. Moreover, the petitioner has alternative remedy

         available in the form of Rule 67 of the 2019 Rules to challenge

         the measurement and other aspects in an appeal.

                    22. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that

         considering the express language used by legislature, the Court

         cannot read the word ‘shall’ in place of ‘may’ in Rule 60 (2). As

         such, submission made on behalf of the petitioner is not

         persuasive enough to take a view that in case of alleged

         overloading, the officer is mandatorily required to take the

         vehicle to a weighbridge.

                    23. So far as other contentions of the petitioner about

         the validity of challan or not providing copy of seizure memo to

         the driver of the vehicle are concerned, such contentions have

         not much merit. It is not the case of the respondent authorities

         that the petitioner was not holding the valid challan. If the

         driver was not served with the copy of seizure memo, this lapse

         would not vitiate the whole prosecution. Further, claim of non-

         adherence to other procedural safeguard ipso facto would not

         have rendered the FIR liable to be quashed under writ
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          15/17




         jurisdiction. Moreover, all these issues could be agitated before

         the learned trial court.

                    24. Therefore, the petitioner has not been able to make

         out a case for quashment of the Awatarnagar P.S. Case No.

         42/2024.

                    25. So far as the prayer of the petitioner regarding

         release of the vehicle is concerned, it has been submitted on

         behalf of the respondent Mining Department that a penalty

         amount of Rs. 2,84,960/- has been imposed in terms of Rule

         51(1)(b) read with Rule 56 of the 2019 Rules and the petitioner

         can get the release of the vehicle by paying this penalty amount,

         the petitioner has an available remedy in the form of an appeal

         before the competent authority                 under Rule 67 of the 2019

         Rules. However, the truck of the petitioner has been seized on

         22.02.2024 and almost two years have elapsed and the vehicle

         of the petitioner has been losing its road-worthiness, hence I am

         of the view that the respondent authorities could be directed to

         release the vehicle subject to payment of the penalty amount in

         easy installments.

                      26. While dealing with the seized vehicles from time

         to time by the police either in commission of various offences or

         abandoned vehicles or vehicles which are recovered during

         investigation of complaint of thefts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                          16/17




         in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,

         (2002) 10 SCC 283 observed as under:-

                            “In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of
                            no use to keep such-seized vehicles at the
                            police stations for a long period. It is for the
                            Magistrate to pass appropriate orders
                            immediately by taking appropriate bond and
                            guarantee as well as security for return of the
                            said vehicles, if required at any point of time.
                            This can be done pending hearing of
                            applications for return of such vehicles.
                            In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the
                            accused, owner, or the insurance company or
                            by third person, then such vehicle may be
                            ordered to be auctioned by the Court. If the
                            said vehicle is insured with the insurance
                            company then insurance company be
                            informed by the Court to take possession of
                            the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner
                            or a third person. If Insurance company fails
                            to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as
                            per the direction of the Court. The Court
                            would pass such order within a period of six
                            months from the date of production of the said
                            vehicle before the Court. In any case, before
                            handing over possession of such vehicles,
                            appropriate photographs of the said vehicle
                            should be taken and detailed panchnama
                            should be prepared.”


                      27. Accordingly, the concerned respondent is directed

         to release the Tata truck of the petitioner bearing Registration

         No.BR-04GA-8399 on payment of penalty amount of

         Rs.2,84,960/- in six monthly installments. The Truck in question

         would be released after payment of first installment of Rs.

         50,000/- before the authority concerned, on or before 27 th

         February, 2026, and rest penalty amount would be paid in five

         equal monthly installments on or before 27 th           of every month,
             Patna High Court CR. WJC No.846 of 2024 dt.29-01-2026
                                                       17/17




                      subject to further satisfaction of the court concerned.

                                 28. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the

                      present petition stands disposed of.




                                                          (Arun Kumar Jha, J)
V.K.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                27.11.2025
Uploading Date          29.01.2026
Transmission Date       29.01.2026