CHAINA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions have been filed being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Courts below for release of vehicles of different categories, which have been seized by the respondents for violation of mining laws, on supurdaginama. By the said orders, the prayer for release of vehicles has either been rejected or has been allowed by putting onerous conditions of depositing the amount of penalty and compounded fee as levied by mining officer.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners jointly submitted that the vehicles have been seized by the respondents for alleged illegal mining activity as per the provision of Rule 54 read with Rule 60 of Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rule, 2017 and Sec. 4/21 of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957) read with Sec. 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners being registered owners of the vehicles in question are entitled to get back the possession of the seized vehicles. There is no other person claiming supurdgi over the said vehicles. It was contended that the vehicles in question may be directed to be released in favour of the petitioners on interim custody keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 SC 638.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the vehicles in question were found involved in transportation of illegal minerals, particularly, bajri/river sand. Learned Counsel submitted that the vehicles have been seized by the competent Government officials on finding that they are being used for illegal purposes and in case, they are released on supurdaginama, the possibility of offending vehicles being used in illegal activities of like nature or otherwise cannot be ruled out.