Patna High Court
Ravi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate authority for relief.
Summary
Ravi Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to quash a letter dated 09.01.2026 issued by the Mining Inspector that authorized the illegal seizure of his truck despite a valid challan and without any notice or hearing. He also requested the release of the vehicle and compensation for its confinement. The respondents, including the State of Bihar and various mining officials, argued that the petitioner should have approached the district collector under the procedural provisions. The court noted that the appropriate remedy lay in filing an appeal before the designated appellate authority and that the petition was pending while limitation issues were being considered. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the matter through the proper appellate channel.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a vehicle seized by a mining authority without notice or hearing?
- Does the petitioner have locus standi to seek a writ of mandamus for quashing the seizure letter?
- Is compensation payable for alleged illegal confinement of the vehicle?
Subjects
- seizure of vehicle
- due process
- mandamus
- mining regulations
- administrative law
- compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3223 of 2026
======================================================
Ravi Kumar Son of Ram Kumar, R/o Nakta Diyara, Dinpur-cum-Khagaul,
P.S. Digha, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
4. The Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office, Saharsa.
5. The Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Saharsa.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Kathnagar Police Station, Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnikant, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Standing Counsel (11)
For the Mines Dept. : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP Mines
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
grant of following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature
of "Mandamus" for quashing the letter no.
Camp/02/Kathnagar Thana/Khanan, Saharsa
dated 09.01.2026 issued by the Mining Inspector,
District Mining Office, Saharsa whereby and
whereunder the petitioner's truck bearing
Registration No. JH02AH5626 which has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.3223 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/3
illegally seized despite having a valid challan,
without issuance of any notice and without
granting any opportunity of hearing.
(ii) for issuance of a writ or any other
order or direction commanding the respondent
authorities to release the truck of the petitioner
bearing Registration No. JH02AH5626 which
was seized in gross violation of due process of
law.
(iii) for direction to the respondent
authorities to pay compensation to the petitioner
for illegal confinement of his commercial
vehicle.
(iv) for any other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner be found entitled in the eye
of law.”
3. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondent nos. 3 to 5 and learned Spl. PP Mines has taken this
Court to the paragraph no.6 to show that petitioner ought to
have move before the Collector of the district pursuant to the
order in question.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an
Patna High Court CWJC No.3223 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
3/3
appropriate appeal shall be filed but there has been delay as the
petitioner was pursuing remedy before this Court.
5. If the petition is preferred in next four weeks, the
concerned Collector, Saharsa shall take note of the fact that the
writ petition was pending before this Court while dealing with
the limitation petition.
6. Needless to add, the petitioner will have an
opportunity to bring on record every facts/documents before the
appellate authority for an appropriate order.
7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid
observation.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U
Checking your session…