Patna High Court
Sonamati DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner must approach the Mineral Development Officer with a fresh representation, and the writ petition was disposed.
Summary
Petitioner Sonamati Devi challenged the seizure of her vehicle by mining officials, alleging it was done without due process. She sought a writ of certiorari to quash the seizure, mandamus to release the vehicle, and a direction to halt coercive actions. The court noted that the Mineral Development Officer (respondent No.4) is the appropriate authority to consider a fresh representation by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed, directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation within four weeks, after which the officer must pass a reasoned order. No substantive ruling on the legality of the seizure was made.
Issues considered
- The seizure of the vehicle was effected without following due process of law.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari and mandamus to release the vehicle.
- Whether the mining authorities have the power to impose penalties or take coercive steps in this context.
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- due process
- mining law
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2823 of 2026
======================================================
Sonamati Devi Wife of Jitendra Prasad, Resident of Ward No. 26,
Maharajchak, Masaurhi, P.S.- Masaurhi, District- Patna, PIN- 844452.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Patna.
4. The Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office, Patna.
5. The Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Patna.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Gaurichak Police Station, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnikant, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC-13
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“i. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing
the illegal seizure and detention of the vehicle
(Hywa) bearing Registration No. BR25GA-3839
seized on 02.07.2025, without following due process
of law.
ii. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith
release the seized vehicle of the Petitioner without
insisting upon illegal or arbitrary penalty.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2823 of 2026(2) dt.23-04-2026
2/2
iii. For a direction upon the Respondents
to refrain from taking coercive steps pursuant to the
impugned seizure notice during pendency of the
present writ petition.
iv. For any other relief(s) to which the
Petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. At the outset, learned Spl.P.P. Mines submits that the
Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office, Patna
(respondent no. 4) will be taking care of the fresh representation
of the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. In that background, the writ petition stands disposed
of allowing the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 4, the
Mineral Development Officer, Patna with fresh representation
and if such petition is filed in next four weeks, the concerned
respondent shall take up the matter and pass a reasoned order at
an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…