Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order of forfeiture of a vehicle under Rule 23 of the M.P. Minerals (Illegal Excavation, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022 (‘Rules’), and imposing a penalty, the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal, JJ., held that the action of the authorities was very mechanical and careless as the registered owner of the vehicle was not examined and the petitioner was wrongly proceeded against merely on the basis of the driver’s statement and thus set aside the impugned order with costs.
Background
The case arose from seizure of a truck by the Revenue Officer bearing registration No. RJ-14-GE-8519 which was illegally transporting minerals without any statutory permission or documents and on the basis of the disclosure by the truck driver about the truck belonging to the petitioner, a Panchnama was prepared. Proceedings were carried out against the petitioner, upon which the petitioner stated that he is not the owner of the aforesaid truck and that it does not belong to him. However, the petitioner reply was not considered and the impugned order was passed, directing the forfeiture of the truck.
The vehicle was registered in the name of Balveer Singh and was valid upto 18th December, 2027 as according to the registration details filed by the petitioner. The Court noted that despite this, no effort was made by the authorities to verify the ownership or record the statement of the registered owner, showing that the entire proceedings were initiated against the petitioner solely based on truck driver Rajesh statement who was found on the spot with vehicle.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the Mining Inspector failed to record the statement of the registered owner before submitting the report, resulting in the petitioner being wrongly treated as the owner and burdened with liability. It noted that the proceedings were conducted in a mechanical and careless manner, as the Collector being a senior IAS officer, did not care to examine facts of the case nor did he verify about the actual ownership or that any action had been taken against the true owner, instead blindly relied on the subordinate officer’s report. The Court further opined that when there are provisions for imposing a heavy fine on a quasi – judicial officer, it is expected that they would decide the matter in a judicial manner.
Allowing the petition, the Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 on the respondents, granting liberty to recover the same from the erring officials responsible for passing the illegal order.
[Sarang Raguwanshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, WP No. 11018 of 2025, decided on 13-03-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Shoeb Hasan Khan, Advocate
For the respondent: Janhavi Pandit, Additional Advocate General
