Patna High Court
Jitendra RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court ordered the release of the seized truck subject to the petitioner’s payment of the penalty in two instalments as specified.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Ray, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State of Bihar and its mining officials to release a commercial truck seized on grounds of overloading. The truck was seized by the District Mining Officer, Arwal, and a penalty of Rs.8,18,594 was levied via an e‑challan. The petitioner offered to pay the penalty in two instalments—Rs.5,18,594 immediately and the balance of Rs.3,00,000 within four weeks—contending that the vehicle, left exposed, would deteriorate. The Mines Department did not object to this arrangement. The court, considering the limited prayer and the department’s consent, ordered the release of the truck subject to the stipulated payment schedule, warning that failure to pay the balance would permit re‑seizure.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the truck by the District Mining Officer can be set aside by a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the petitioner may be permitted to discharge the penalty in instalments for the release of the seized vehicle.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- vehicle seizure
- overloading
- penalty payment
- instalment payment
- mining department
- release of vehicle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3251 of 2026
======================================================
Jitendra Ray Son of Jagadish Ray, Resident of village- Chamtha Goptol, P.S.-
Bachhwara, District- Begusarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Mines Director, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Mines Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Arwal.
5. The District Mining Officer, Arwal.
6. The Mineral Development Officer, Arwal.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Government Pleader (7)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ in the
nature of MANDAMUS or any other writ(s),
order(s), direction(s), command(s) for
directing the respondents to release the
vehicle truck (commercial) bearing
Registration No.BR09GA6541, Chasis No.
MAT541068J1J29360, Engine
No.ISBE5.91804081363732058 in favour of
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
the petitioner.
3. The matter relates to seizure of a vehicle (Truck)
bearing registration no. BR09GA6541 which was
intercepted/seized by the District Mining Officer, Arwal on the
ground of overloading. Though, the order of the District Mining
Officer, Arwal is unavailable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn
attention to the e-challan issued on the same day to show that
penalty amount is Rs. 8,18,594/-.
5. Reserving his right to agitate the matter in
accordance with law, since the truck is stationed under an open
sky and it will deteriorate further, he is ready to pay Rs.
8,18,594/-. However, the submission is that since the truck is
idle, he has economic problem, be allowed to pay in two
instalments inasmuch as:
(i) Rs.5,18,594/- through Demand Draft
issued by the local branch of the State
Bank of India at the time of release of the
truck;
(ii) rest Rs. 3,00,000/- by way of same
Demand Draft within a period of four
weeks;
Patna High Court CWJC No.3251 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
(iii) failure to pay the rest of
Rs.3,00,000/-, the authority shall be free
to take immediate steps for seizure of the
vehicle in question.
6. Learned counsel representing the Mines
Department do not object to it and rightly so as keeping the
truck under an open sky till the proceeding is over will not
benefit anyone.
7. In that background and in view of the limited
prayer put forward by the petitioner through its learned counsel,
the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to
release the truck subject to the conditions undertaken (and
recorded in paragraph-5) is fulfilled.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U
Checking your session…