Patna High Court
Ramanjee JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The penalty and the Collector’s order are quashed, and the seized vehicle is to be released on conditions, with the matter remitted for fresh consideration after due notice and hearing.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramanjee Jha, challenged the seizure of his hydraulic tipper (Reg. No. BR07GC1770) and the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 8,42,000 by various mining and transport authorities, alleging that no challan, show‑cause notice or hearing was afforded. The court noted that the fine was levied in clear violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was neither notified nor heard before the penalty was imposed. It further observed that the matter had previously been remitted to the Collector, who again passed an order without complying with procedural safeguards. Consequently, the court quashed both the penalty order dated 22‑02‑2025 and the Collector’s order dated 01‑04‑2025. The court granted interim relief by directing the release of the seized vehicle subject to a security of Rs. 20 lakhs, submission of ownership documents, and undertakings not to alienate the vehicle. The matter was remitted to the original authority for fresh consideration after a proper show‑cause notice and hearing. The application for relief was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the vehicle and imposition of a penalty without a show‑cause notice and hearing violate the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the orders passed by the mining authorities and the Collector can be quashed.
- Whether interim relief for the release of the seized vehicle is warranted pending fresh consideration.
Subjects
- natural justice
- seizure of vehicle
- penalty without notice
- show‑cause notice
- interim relief
- quashing order
- mining law
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20688 of 2025
======================================================
Ramanjee Jha Son Of Late Chadrasekhar Jha, Resident Of Village-Kanakpur,
Police Station-Sakatpur, District-Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar Through Secretary, Department Of Mines And Geology,
Government Of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary Cum Mines Commissioner, Department Of Mines And
Geology, Government Of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Transport Commissioner, Department Of Transport, Government
Of Bihar, Vishweswaraiya Bhawan, 1st Floor, Bailey Road, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Madhubani.
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Madhubani.
7. The District Mining Officer, Madhubani.
8. The Mining Inspector, Madhubani
9. The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station- Bhairavsthan, District - Madhubani.
10. The State Bank of India through the Branch Manager, SBI, Manigachhi,
Branch, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abu Nasar, Advocate
For the Mines Dept : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P., Mines
Ms.Shruti Singh, Advocate
For the C.B.I. : Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Standing Counsel (15)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 29-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present application has been filed seeking
quashing of multiple orders passed by mining authorities, secure
release of the seized vehicle, stay on coercive and confiscation
proceedings and claim compensation for alleged illegal and
arbitrary actions.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
2/4
3. Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
C.B.I. submits that petitioner’s loan account is open and
standard.
4. From Annexure ‘P/1’, the vehicle of the petitioner
having Registration No. BR07GC1770 and chasis no.
MAT786009P8F08661 was seized by the respondent authorities
as it was found without challan and cover and penalty of Rs.
8,42,000/- was imposed without issuing show-cause and without
hearing the petitioner.
5. The matter has been decided by the Collector and
in between that the petitioner had approached this Court in
CWJC No. 10190 of 2025 by which the matter was remitted
back to the Collector who had passed the order dated
01.04.2025.
6. It is no dispute that before imposing the penalty no
notice was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner was heard.
The fine has been calculated without issuance of any show-
cause notice and without hearing the petitioner which is in
complete violation of principles of natural justice.
7. In these circumstances, the fine of Rs. 8,42,000/-
which has been imposed by the respondent authority vide order
dated 22.02.2025 and the order dated 01.04.2025 passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
3/4
Collector are hereby quashed.
8. The matter is remitted back to the original authority
for fresh consideration after issuance of a proper show-cause and
after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
9. 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 Gujrat reported as 2002 (10) SCC 283, during
pendency of the matter before the concerned authority, the
Hydraulic Tipper bearing Registration No. BR07GC1770 and
chasis no. MAT786009P8F08661 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 Rs. 20
lakhs (not bank guarantee) before the concerned/ competent
authority before whom the confiscation proceeding is pending.
(ii) The petitioner shall furnish all the necessary
papers/documents of ownership before the concerned
competent authority.
(iii) The petitioner shall undertake, in writing, that
the vehicle, in question, shall neither be alienated nor be
transferred in favour of any third party during the pendency of
the proceeding and that the vehicles, 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 co-operate with the
authorities till disposal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20688 of 2025(4) dt.29-01-2026
4/4
10. The petitioner is given liberty to raise all the
grounds including the ground mentioned in paragraph ‘29’ of
the writ petition before the respondent authorities in his show-
cause and all these grounds shall be considered after hearing the
petitioner and a detailed order shall be passed.
11. Accordingly, this application stands allowed and
the letter produced by Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for the C.B.I. is taken on record.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U
Checking your session…