Failure to Comply With Section 56(4) Mandating Immediate Disclosure of Fine Amounts Voids Continued Vehicle Seizure

The petitioner’s Hyva/Truck (Reg. No. JH01DJ3671) was seized on 25.01.2026 by the District Mining Office, Nawada, while transporting 600 CFT of stone chips

An FIR (Nawada Mufassil P.S. Case No. 35 of 2026) was lodged alleging the driver fled without providing a valid transit challan

The petitioner moved the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus for the release of the vehicle, asserting the existence of a valid challan and claiming the authorities failed to disclose the fine amount required for release under statutory rules

Despite a counter-affidavit filed by the Mineral Development Officer (MDO) nearly three months after seizure, the fine amount remained undisclosed

1. Whether the respondent authorities/Mineral Development Officer complied with the mandatory procedure for disclosure of fines under Section 56(4) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Amendment Rules, 2021

2. Whether the continued detention of the vehicle without notification of the compounding fee is legally sustainable

Rule 56(4) of the Bihar Minerals (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Amendment Rules, 2021. This rule mandates that seized property is liable for confiscation by the Collector only if the offender fails to pay an amount equal to twenty-five times the royalty (plus interest, compensation, and compound fee) within one month of the offense

The Proviso to Rule 56(4) establishes a statutory right for the owner to have the property released and handed over immediately upon payment of these dues within the one-month window

The Court found that the Mineral Development Officer (MDO), Nawada, acted with "whims" and failed to adhere to the Bihar Mineral Rules

Specifically, the Court observed that though the seizure occurred in January and the counter-affidavit was filed in April, the MDO failed to calculate or disclose the fine amount to the petitioner

This failure effectively deprived the petitioner of the statutory right to pay the fine and secure the release of the vehicle within the 30-day period prescribed under Rule 56(4)

The Court noted a pattern of irregularities in the Nawada District Mining Office, referencing similar lapses in Bhushan Singh vs. The State of Bihar

Consequently, the Court determined that the authorities could not benefit from their own procedural violations to justify the continued "illegal" detention of the vehicle

The Court allowed the petition and directed the Mineral Development Officer, Nawada, to immediately ensure the release of the vehicle in favor of the petitioner

The release is subject to the petitioner's undertaking not to alienate the vehicle during the pendency of the criminal case and to produce it before the authorities as and when required