Patna High Court
Ajay KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that the petition lacks merit and dismissed the application for quashment and release of the vehicle.
Summary
Ajay Kumar petitioned the Patna High Court for quashment of the order dated 03‑12‑2024 that authorized the seizure of his payloader (Reg. No. BR24GA‑6919) in connection with an illegal sand‑mining case (Barun PS Case No 366 of 2022) and for its release. Earlier, the court had directed him to file a representation before the Mines Commissioner, which was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was involved in illegal mining after its number plate was removed. During the hearing, the court questioned how the payloader, belonging to a resident of Rohtas, was found at the illegal‑mining site in Aurangabad and why its number plate was missing. The petitioner’s counsel could not satisfactorily explain these facts. Consequently, the court found no basis for interference and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the seizure of the petitioner’s payloader under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Mines and Minerals Development and Regulation Act is legally justified.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to quash the order dated 03‑12‑2024 and obtain release of the seized vehicle.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 411
- Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 — s. Rule 04(1A), Rule 21
Subjects
- illegal mining
- vehicle seizure
- quashment of order
- Mines Commissioner
- Indian Penal Code
- Bihar mining regulations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7422 of 2025
======================================================
Ajay Kumar S/o Surendra Singh, Resident of Suba Bigaha, P.O. and P.S.-
Jamuhar, Dist-Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Mines Commissioner, Department of Mines
and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) cum Mines Commissioner,
Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Aurangabad, Bihar.
6. The Officer in Charge, Barun Police Station, District-Aurangabad.
7. The District Mining Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (21)
For the Mines : Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl. PP
Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwari, Advocate
Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
Mr. Utkarsh Pathak, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
8 22-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the State and the learned counsel for the
Mines Department.
2. This application has been filed for commanding
and directing the authority concern for the quashment of the
order dated 03-12-2024 passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2024 and
release of the Vehicle of the petitioner Bearing Reg. No.
BR24GA-6919, Chassis No. 1PY5310EEGA011245, Engine
Patna High Court CWJC No.7422 of 2025(8) dt.22-01-2026
2/3
No. PY3029H072035, which has been seized/impounded
merely on suspicion in connection with Barun P. S. Case No 366
of 2022, dated 17-08-2022 registered for the offences
punishable under section 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code
and rule 04(1A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals Development
and Regulation Act and Rules 11, 18, 43, 46 of the Bihar
Minerals Concession & Prevention of illegal mining
Transportation and Storage Rules.
3. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court
vide C.W.J.C. No. 6944 of 2023 in which the petitioner was
directed to file a representation before the Mines Commissioner,
Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna which was to
be considered by the Mines Commissioner.
4. The Mines Commissioner has considered the
representation of the petitioner and has rejected the same on the
ground that the payloader of the petitioner was found involved
in illegal sand mining after removing the number plate. The
counter affidavit of the DTO provides the registration number of
the payloader.
5. During the hearing, this Court has put some
questions to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first
question was whether as to how did the payloader of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7422 of 2025(8) dt.22-01-2026
3/3
petitioner reached the place of illegal mining site when the
petitioner belongs to Rohtas and the payloader has been
recovered from Aurangabad.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the loader had been taken for some legal purpose. The learned
counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain as to how
the loader was caught at the site of illegal mining. He has also
not been able to explain as to how and why the number plate of
the payloader was not there on the payloader when the illegal
mining was detected.
7. In these circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for
interference. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U
Checking your session…