Vivekanand Kumar vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3644 of 2026
======================================================
Vivekanand Kumar Son of Tanik Singh R/o Narhat, P.O.- Narhat, District-
Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Nawada.
4. The Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office, Nawada.
5. The Mining Inspector, District Mining Office, Nawada.
6. The Officer-in-Charge, Mufassil Police Station, Nawada.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnikant, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad, AC to GP-14
For the Mines : Ms. Shruti Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2026
Heard Mr. Rajnikant, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Ms. Shruti Singh, learned counsel representing the
Mines Department and Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad, AC to GP-14.
2 . The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
“(i) for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to
forthwith release the seized vehicle of the petitioner
namely Hyva/Truck bearing Registration No.
JH01DJ3671, chassis no. MAT466461J3P39273,

Patna High Court CWJC No.3644 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
2/7
seized in connection with Nawada (Muffasil) P.S.
Case no. 35 of 2026 dated 25.01.2026 despite the
existence of valid transit challan and without
granting any notice or opportunity of hearing; and
(ii) for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities not
to proceed with confiscation of the aforesaid
vehicle of the petitioner; and
(iii) for issuance of a writ directing the
Respondents not to keep the petitioner's vehicle in
continued and indefinite custody, causing
irreparable loss and deterioration, during
pendency of proceedings.
(iv) pending final disposal of the present
writ petition, direct the Respondents to grant
interim release of the vehicle in favour of the
Petitioner on furnishing of
bond/undertaking/security, as may be directed by
this Hon'ble Court;
(v) for any other relief(s) to which the
Petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3 . The Hyva/Truck bearing Registration No. JH-01-

Patna High Court CWJC No.3644 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
3/7
DJ-3671 was moving with approximately 600 CFT of stone
chips from M/s Balaji Stone Chips, Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)
which was to be delivered at Mokamah (Patna, Bihar).
According to the petitioner, the challan period was 06:05:32
P.M. (25.01.2026) to 04:56:26 A.M. (26.01.2026). It was
intercepted within the Nawada jurisdiction on 25.01.2026 at
04:50 hours (afternoon) . The claim made by the respondent-
authorities is/are that the driver escaped from the place without
providing the challan and it was found to be loaded with stone
chips which weigh about 48,600 kilograms. Accordingly,
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026 dated 25.01.2026 was
lodged.
4 . Multifold submissions have been put forward by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as under:
“(i) it was moving with a valid challan;
(ii) the respondents chose not to look into it and
seized the vehicle;
(iii) the respondent (Mineral Development
Officer, District Mining Office, Nawada) failed to
comply with Section 56(4) of the Bihar Minerals
(Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining,
Transportation & Storage) Amendment Rules, 2021
( henceforth for short ‘the Rules’) inasmuch as the fine

Patna High Court CWJC No.3644 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
4/7
amount was not disclosed in time and/or any copy
provided so that payment could be made and he gets his
vehicle released to avoid the economic loss.”
5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that if the truck is released upon payment of the fine amount:
“(i) he shall not alienate the said truck; and
(ii) he shall produce it before the respondent-
authorities as and when required.”
6 . A counter-affidavit has come on behalf of the
respondents duly signed by the Mineral Development Officer,
District Mining Office, Nawada and it repeats what has been
incorporated in the FIR. It has been further recorded that due
procedure has been followed in the matter. However, the
concerned Officer has failed to bring on record the fine amount
even in his counter-affidavit to show that Section 56(4) of ‘the
Rules ’ has been complied and the petitioner was disclosed the
fine amount.
7 . It is to be noted that the seizure is of 25.01.2026 and
the counter-affidavit has come on 18.04.2026 i.e. almost around
three months. However, whether the respondents have followed
Section 56(4) of ‘the Rules ’ or not has been recorded. It is clear
tht though Mineral Development Officer, Nawada is guided by
the Act/ ‘the Rules’ as also the Government circular/notification,

Patna High Court CWJC No.3644 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
5/7
he is acting according to his own whims.
8 . Section 56(4) of ‘the Rules’ read as under:
“ 56(4) All property seized under this rule
shall be liable to be confiscated by an order of the
Collector if the amount equal to twenty five times of
royalty in lieu of cost of mineral, rent, royalty,
compensation for environmental degradation and
tax chargeable on the land occupied without lawful
authority etc., along with compound fee is not paid
by the offender within a period of one month from
the date of commission of such offence or when
the recoveries are not affected by that time:
Provided that on payment of these dues
within the said period of one month, all properties
seized shall be ordered to be released and shall be
handed over to the offender or the owner of the
property.”
(emphasis added)
9 . From the aforesaid fact, it is clear that the Section
56(4) of ‘the Rules’ has been fully violated by the concerned
Officer/respondent no. 4 and even after the passage of couple of
months, the petitioner has no knowledge about the fine amount.
10 . This Court has time and again found the concerned

Patna High Court CWJC No.3644 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
6/7
Mineral Development Officer of District Mining Office, Nawada
to be wanting in complying with ‘the Rules’ in its letter and
spirit and in that background, was forced to direct the Principal
Secretary Department of Mines and Geology, Bihar, Patna to
look into the matter and do the needful as irregularities have
been found in his Office. The aforesaid direction has been given
in the case of Bhushan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
(CWJC No. 3778 of 2026) .
11 . This Court reiterates that ‘the Rules’ clearly show
that the fine amount has to be immediately disclosed to the
violators so that he/she could pay the fine amount in thirty days
and gets his vehicle released, failing which, the matter has to be
forwarded to the Collector of the district for initiating the
process for its seizure.
12 . It is to be reiterated that the counter-affidavit filed
by the Mineral Development Officer, District Mining Office,
Nawada on 18.04.2026 has failed to even attach any copy to
show that he has followed Section 56(4) of ‘the Rules’ by
imposing a fine amount which the petitioner has to be paid.
Thus, the claim that the driver fled away from the place and as
such, no paper could be handed over to him, has to be rejected as
he had an opportunity to annex all the documents in the counter-
affidavit filed by him that if the petitioner wants, can make

Patna High Court CWJC No.3644 of 2026 dt.09-07-2026
7/7
payment of the fine amount and gets his vehicle released.
13 . The petitioner has made out his case. The Mineral
Development Officer, District Mining Office, Nawada is
directed to immediately ensure the release of the vehicle in
favour of the petitioner as he himself having violated the Section
56(4) of ‘the Rules’ , cannot illegally keep the vehicle under his
jurisdiction.
14 . As recorded above, the petitioner has undertaken
to produce the vehicle as and when required and further shall not
alienate it during the pendency of the case.
15 . With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition
stands disposed of. No cost.

(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 13.07.2026
Transmission Date N/A