Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The penalty order and seizure are quashed as they violate natural justice, and the vehicle is to be released conditionally pending fresh consideration.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar Yadav, challenged the seizure of his vehicle and a hefty fine imposed by Bihar authorities, alleging that the penalty was levied without a prior hearing and that a show‑cause notice was issued only after the decision was made. The court examined whether the post‑factum issuance of a show‑cause notice satisfied the principles of natural justice. It held that the authorities had already decided on the penalty and merely provided a token hearing thereafter, which contravenes the requirement of a fair hearing. Consequently, the penalty order dated 09‑12‑2025 was quashed and the seizure was set aside. The court granted interim relief, directing the release of the vehicle subject to a security of Rs 15 lakhs and other conditions, pending fresh consideration by the authorities. The petition was allowed in these terms.
Issues considered
- What is the legality of the vehicle seizure and imposition of penalty without prior hearing?
- Does a post‑decisional show‑cause notice satisfy the principles of natural justice?
- Is the impugned order liable to be quashed under writ jurisdiction?
Subjects
- natural justice
- vehicle seizure
- penalty order
- show cause notice
- writ of certiorari
- mandamus
- interim relief
- administrative law
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.316 of 2026
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar Yadav Son of Indradev Yadav, Resident of village- Bagro,
Police Station- Domchanch, District - Koderma (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, Nawada Police Station, Nawada, Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (27)
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. P.P.
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 02-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed 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.- JH12E-3541, which
has been illegally seized on 09.10.2025 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.316 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
2/4
enquiry of the illegal and coercive actions of
police officials of Nawada police station,
Nawada as well as officials of Mines &
Geology Department, Nawada.
(iv) For quashing letter no.- 5795/ख०
dated 09.12.2025 issued under signature of
Mineral Development Officer, Nawada
demanding a fine of Rs. 8,50,894.00 imposed
upon truck of the petitioner.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner without affording
an opportunity of hearing and subsequent thereto a show cause
notice was issued to him.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits
that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in due
compliance of the principles of natural justice and therefore the
impugned order suffers from no illegality and infirmity.
5. From the perusal of the impugned order of penalty
dated 09.12.2025 as well as the show cause notice of even
dated, it is clear that the respondent authorities had imposed the
penalty upon the petitioner and therefore subsequently as an
afterthought issued a show cause notice. From the perusal of the
impugned order and the show cause notice, it is clear that the
respondent authorities had already made up their mind with
regard to imposition of penalty upon the petitioner and have
merely resorted to giving a post decisional hearing. Such Ex-
Patna High Court CWJC No.316 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
3/4
post facto issuance of show cause does not satisfy the
requirements of principles of natural justice and is therefore
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.12.2025
is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the
respondent authorities for fresh consideration after affording a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter
passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.
7. 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 JH-12E-
3541 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 fifteen lakhs
(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
Patna High Court CWJC No.316 of 2026(2) dt.02-02-2026
4/4
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/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.
8. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this
petition is allowed to the above extent.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U
Checking your session…