Patna High Court
Waquar RazaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The order dated 06.01.2026 is quashed for being unreasoned and arbitrary, and the vehicle is to be released conditionally pending fresh consideration.
Summary
Petitioner Waquar Raza challenged the illegal seizure of his vehicle by Bihar authorities, seeking a writ of certiorari, mandamus for release, and an independent inquiry. The High Court examined the order dated 06.01.2026 that rejected his show‑cause reply without recording any reasons. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, the Court held that a quasi‑judicial authority must give a reasoned order, and the failure to do so amounted to an arbitrary exercise of power. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order, remitted the matter to the Mineral Development Officer for a fresh, reasoned consideration, and granted interim relief by ordering the vehicle’s release subject to security and other conditions. The petition was disposed with directions for re‑weighing the vehicle in the presence of the petitioner.
Issues considered
- The order rejecting the petitioner's show‑cause reply was issued without recording reasons, violating principles of natural justice.
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner's vehicle was illegal and liable to be quashed.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the immediate release of the seized vehicle.
- Whether an independent inquiry into the actions of the police and mining officials is warranted.
- Whether interim relief of conditional release of the vehicle is appropriate pending final determination.
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- writ of certiorari
- writ of mandamus
- reasoned order
- natural justice
- administrative law
- interim relief
- security deposit
- mineral development officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19638 of 2025
======================================================
Waquar Raza son of Sabir Hussain resident of Mohalla- Sirat Nagar, above
Indian Hospital, Near Haweli Dhaba, Neori, Police Station -Sadar, District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada, Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Nawada, Bihar
5. The Mines Inspector, Mines and Geology Department, Nawada, Bihar
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Mines and Geology Department,
Nawada, Bihar.
7. The SHO, Rajauli police station, Nawada, Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kumar Manish, SC-5
Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, AC to SC-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
5 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the
following reliefs:
“(i) For issuing a writ of certiorari or any
other appropriate writ quashing the illegal seizure of
the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration
No.- JH01FW-1217, which has been illegally seized
on 24.10.2025 by the respondent and no documents
regarding aforesaid seizure has been provided.
(ii) For issuance of a writ of Mandamus
directing the immediate release of the seized vehicle
which was seized without following due process of
law.
(iii) For directing an independent enquiry
of the illegal and coercive actions of police officials
of Rajauli police station, Nawada as well as officials
Patna High Court CWJC No.19638 of 2025(5) dt.03-02-2026
2/7
of Mines & Geology Department, Nawada.”
3. The truck of the petitioner was seized 24.10.2025.
It was directed to be released after hearing the petitioner. The
petitioner has filed his show cause before the Mineral
Development Officer on 31.12.2025 which has been rejected by
an order dated 06.01.2026. The entirety of the order dated
06.10.2026 is reproduced hereinbelow:
4. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.19638 of 2025(5) dt.03-02-2026
3/7
Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood
Ahmed Khan, reported as (2010) 9 SCC 496, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates
(P) Ltd. (supra) has held as under:-
“46. The position in the United States has been
indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee
[(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445 : AIR
1990 SC 1984] in SCC p. 602, para 11 : AIR
para 11 at p. 1988 of the judgment. This Court
held that in the United States the courts have
always insisted on the recording of reasons by
administrative authorities in exercise of their
powers. It was further held that such recording
of reasons is required as “the courts cannot
exercise their duty of review unless they are
advised of the considerations underlying the
action under review”. In S.N. Mukherjee
[(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 : 1991
SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445 : AIR
1990 SC 1984] this Court relied on the
decisions of the US Court in Securities and
Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corpn. [87 L
Ed 626 : 318 US 80 (1942)] and Dunlop v.
Bachowski [44 L Ed 2d 377 : 421 US 560
(1974)] in support of its opinion discussed
above.”
“47. Summarizing the above discussion, this
Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has
always been to record reasons, even in
administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must
record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of
reasons is meant to serve the wider
Patna High Court CWJC No.19638 of 2025(5) dt.03-02-2026
4/7
principle of justice that justice must not
only be done it must also appear to be done
as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also
operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and
quasi-judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion
has been exercised by the decision-maker
on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become
as indispensable a component of a
decision-making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial,
quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and
constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts.
This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial
decision-making justifying the principle
that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial
opinions these days can be as different as
the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one
common purpose which is to demonstrate
by reason that the relevant factors have
been objectively considered. This is
important for sustaining the litigants' faith
in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a
requirement for both judicial accountability
and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial
authority is not candid enough about
his/her decision-making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person
deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions
must be cogent, clear and succinct. A
Patna High Court CWJC No.19638 of 2025(5) dt.03-02-2026
5/7
pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp
reasons” is not to be equated with a valid
decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that
transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers.
Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject
to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in
Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100
Harvard Law Review 731-37] .)
(n) Since the requirement to record
reasons emanates from the broad doctrine
of fairness in decision-making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component
of human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija
v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at
562 para 29 and Anya v. University of
Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] ,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
the European Convention of Human Rights
which requires, “adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial
decisions”.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up
precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving
reasons for the decision is of the essence
and is virtually a part of “due process”.
5. Upon perusal of the order dated 06.01.2026, this
Court is of the considered opinion that no reasons have been
assigned before rejecting the reply to the show cause filed by
the petitioner. Non assigning of reasons is indicative of total
non- application of mind by the concerned competent authority
and is arbitrary and therefore unsustainable.
6. In these circumstances, the order dated 06.01.2026
Patna High Court CWJC No.19638 of 2025(5) dt.03-02-2026
6/7
is hereby quashed.
7. The matter is remitted back to the Mineral
Development Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with
law who shall pass a reasoned and speaking orderafter hearing
the petitioner.
8. Since no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping
the vehicle seized, therefore, considering the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal
Desai vs. State of Gujarat reported as 2002 (10) SCC 283,
during pendency of the matter before the concerned authority,
the vehicle in question bearing registration number JH01FW-
1217 shall be released in favour of the petitioner by way of
interim relief with the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall furnish a
security of rupees Nine lakhs
Twenty Five thousand (not in
the form of bank guarantee or
fixed deposit) before the
concerned/competent authority
at the time of release of the
vehicle in question.
ii. The petitioner shall furnish all
the necessary papers/documents
of ownership before the
concerned/competent authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19638 of 2025(5) dt.03-02-2026
7/7
iii. The petitioner shall undertake,
in writing, that the vehicle in
question, shall neither be
alienated nor be
transferred/sold in favour of
any third party during the
pendency of the proceeding and
that the truck in question shall
be produced as and when called
upon or required in the
proceeding or otherwise.
iv. If any jurisdictional objection is
taken by the petitioner, that
shall also be considered by the
authority concerned. The
petitioner will also cooperate
with the authorities till the final
disposal of the proceeding.
9. It is made clear that before releasing the truck of
the petitioner in question, it should be re-weighted along with
the stone chips in the presence of the petitioner.
10. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
this writ petition is disposed of.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U
Checking your session…