Patna High Court
Yaugesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court disposed of the writ petition by ordering the release of the seized truck subject to immediate payment of a portion of the fine and subsequent installment payments, without adjudicating the merits of the penalty.
Summary
The petitioner, owner of a truck, challenged a demand notice dated 11.02.2026 that imposed a penalty of Rs.8,85,200 and ordered the seizure of his vehicle after it was delayed in traffic and broke down. He argued that he is financially distressed, having taken a loan to purchase the truck, and sought quashing of the notice and release of the truck. The respondents, officials of the Mines and Geology Department and district authorities, justified the seizure. The court, without delving into the merits, noted that keeping the truck idle would harm both parties and, with the parties' consent, ordered its release on the condition that the petitioner pays the State Bank of India demand of Rs.1,85,200 immediately and the remaining fine in seven equal installments. The court also directed that the petitioner must not alienate the truck and must produce it when required, warning that failure to pay would permit re‑seizure.
Issues considered
- Whether the demand notice imposing a penalty and seizure of the truck can be quashed pending the writ petition.
- Whether the court can conditionally release a seized vehicle subject to installment payment of the fine.
- Whether the petitioner’s financial hardship justifies a modified payment schedule.
Subjects
- vehicle seizure
- penalty
- installment payment
- civil writ jurisdiction
- Bihar Mines and Geology Department
- financial hardship
- court order for release
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6047 of 2026
======================================================
Yaugesh Kumar Son of Niranjan Yadav, Resident of Village- Dira Chandpur,
Post- Chandpur, Police Station- Pothiya, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Mines and Geology
Department, Gov. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Samastipur.
4. The District Mining Officer, Samastipur.
5. The Assistant Director, District Mining Office, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Riya Bhawna, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Advocate (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-06-2026 Heard Mrs. Riya Bhawna, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The present application has been preferred:
for quashing the impugned demand
notice letter no. 154 dated 11.02.2026 imposing
penalty of Rs.8,85,200/- and stay the operation
of the impugned notice during pendency of this
writ application.
3. The petitioner is the owner of sixteen wheels truck
bearing Registration No. BR-11-GF-0247 and the contention is that
on 21.01.2026, after obtaining a valid challan, departed from
Mirzapur Chowki with stone chips and was destined for Aurangabad.
However, it got struck in traffic jam between Mirza chowki,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6047 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
2/3
Bhagalpur and Kahalgaon and further, the vehicle also got
breakdown and as a result, there was delay in movement which
allowed the respondents to intercept, seize and impose a fine.
4. The contention is that the petitioner is a very poor
person, got loan for purchase of the truck and when it is now under
seizure, he is unable to even pay the loan amount, not to speak about
the financial crisis the family is facing. The submission is that he is
ready to fight the legal battle but release of truck is essential for his
family and as such, sympathetic consideration be given to make the
payment in small installments so that once the truck is released, he
can generate revenue and pay both the Bank as also the respondents’
installments.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes:
i. not to alienate the truck;
ii. to produce it as and when required
by the respondent authorities.
6. A counter affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondent nos. 4 and 5 and they have reasoned out why the truck
has been seized.
7. This Court is not going into the merit of the case and it
is for the petitioner and the respondents to initiate/ conclude the
proceeding. So far as the truck is concerned, admittedly, keeping it
under the sky for deterioration will serve no purpose either for the
petitioner and/or for the respondents. On the other hand, if it is
released in favour of the petitioner, he can generate revenue and can
Patna High Court CWJC No.6047 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026
3/3
make payment.
8. In that background, with the consent of the parties, the
writ petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner to approach the
respondents in next eight weeks and he shall be providing a Demand
Draft issued by the State Bank of India for Rs. 1,85,200/- and once
the legal formalities are completed and the truck is released, the
petitioner is duty-bound to pay the rest of the seven lakhs in seven
equal installments starting 10.09.2026 and ending 10.02.2026.
9. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the fine
amount, the respondents shall be free to take steps for seizure of the
truck once again. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not
alienate the truck and the same shall be produced as and when
required by the respondent authorities.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is
disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.