Auctioning Seized Vehicles Before Revision Deadline Is Illegal: Jharkhand HC

The Jharkhand High Court has rebuked the state administration for the 'unexplained haste' in auctioning a seized vehicle before the statutory period for filing a revision had expired, declaring such actions a grave violation of the constitutional right to property. Emphasizing that due process must be strictly followed before depriving a citizen of their assets, the Court awarded exemplary compensation to the owner while condemning the procedural bypass that prejudiced the litigant.

A bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar heard the writ petition challenging the non-release of a vehicle despite a favorable order from the Mines Commissioner. The petitioner sought the restoration of his truck, which had been auctioned off by district authorities during the very period he was legally entitled to challenge the confiscation order.

Due Process and Constitutional Right to Property

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is well settled principle of law that the Right to Property is a constitutional right and no one can be deprived of his property except by following the due procedure established by law. Thus, the respondents have committed grave illegality in putting the vehicle to auction with unexplained haste."

Identifying a clear breach of natural justice, the bench noted that no personal notice was served to the petitioner before the auction. While the state argued that a general newspaper notice was published, the Court held that a litigant cannot be expected to monitor newspapers for an auction that occurred even before the statutory limitation for revision under Rule 62 of the Jharkhand Mines and Mineral Rules, 2004 had lapsed.

Directives Issued to State Authorities

The Court issued the following directions:

"The respondents are directed to deliver the said vehicle along with the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. The petitioner as well as the intervenor are at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent court of law, if they wish to seek further compensation from the respondents."

Background:

The petitioner's vehicle was seized in 2021 by the Balumath Police in connection with alleged illegal coal transportation under various sections of the IPC, the Coal Mines Act, the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the Jharkhand Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2017. Following a confiscation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Latehar, on February 25, 2023, the vehicle was auctioned on March 8, 2023, for Rs. 20,78,500/-, despite the petitioner having 60 days to file a revision.

The petitioner filed his revision on March 22, 2023, within the limitation period. The Mines Commissioner eventually allowed the revision on May 16, 2025, noting that the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction in light of W.P. (Cr.) No. 751 of 2023. However, when the petitioner sought the vehicle's release, he discovered it had already been auctioned to an intervenor. The High Court eventually ordered the return of the vehicle to the petitioner, finalized the intervenor's compensation, and penalized the state for procedural lapses.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 5989 of 2025
NeutralCitation: 2026:JHHC:21571-DB
Case Title: Ashok Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shahbaj Akhtar, A.C. to A.A.G.-III
For the intervenor: Mr. Prashant Kumar Rahul, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(JHKD) 31