‘Grave Illegality’: Jharkhand HC orders State govt to pay ₹3 lakh for illegal vehicle auction
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, July 22: The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, July 22: The Jharkhand High Court has directed the State government to pay ₹3 lakh as compensation to a truck owner whose vehicle was illegally auctioned before the expiry of the statutory period available to challenge its confiscation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that the authorities acted in undue haste by auctioning the vehicle without waiting for the 60-day limitation period prescribed for filing a revision under the Jharkhand Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2004. The court also directed the authorities to hand over the vehicle to its owner within two weeks.
Vehicle auctioned before revision period ended
The petitioner, Ashok Singh, had challenged the failure of authorities to release his Hywa truck despite an order passed by the Mines Commissioner in May 2025 directing its release after payment of the applicable royalty, penalty and taxes.
The truck was seized by Balumath police in December 2021 on allegations that it was transporting illegally mined coal. It was subsequently confiscated by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Latehar, in February 2023, who ordered its auction.
The vehicle was auctioned on March 8, 2023, even though the statutory 60-day period available to the owner to file a revision against the confiscation order had not expired. The petitioner filed the revision on March 22, 2023, well within the limitation period.
The Mines Commissioner later allowed the revision, holding that the confiscation order had been passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and directed that the vehicle be released.
High Court finds auction illegal
The Bench observed that the authorities had not only auctioned the vehicle before the expiry of the statutory appeal period but had also failed to serve a personal notice on the owner before conducting the auction.
Rejecting the State’s contention that publication of a general auction notice in newspapers was sufficient, the court held that such publication could not substitute personal notice in the circumstances of the case.
“It is well settled 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,” the Bench observed.
The court held that the respondents had committed “grave illegality” by proceeding with the auction in “unexplained haste”, causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.
ALSO READ: Babulal Marandi demands CBI probe into JPSC scam, alleges ‘mastermind’ is being shielded
₹3 lakh awarded for harassment
While declining to assess the petitioner’s claim for higher compensation under its writ jurisdiction, the High Court awarded ₹3 lakh to compensate him for the harassment caused by the illegal actions of the authorities.
The Bench clarified that determining the quantum of additional compensation would require examination of evidence and could only be decided by a competent civil court.
The court directed the respondents to return the truck along with the compensation amount within two weeks from the receipt of the order.
Auction purchaser’s claim left open
The auction purchaser had claimed that he spent around ₹22.5 lakh in addition to the purchase price of ₹20.78 lakh to make the vehicle operational and sought reimbursement of about ₹43 lakh.
The High Court, however, held that this claim also involved disputed questions of fact that could not be decided in writ proceedings.
The Bench noted that the purchaser had used the vehicle commercially for nearly three years after purchasing it in the auction. It found no infirmity in the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to refund the auction amount with simple interest.
According to the court, the purchaser has already been paid ₹26.57 lakh, which it considered reasonable in the circumstances.
Liberty to seek further compensation
The court granted liberty to both the original owner and the auction purchaser to approach the appropriate court if they seek additional compensation arising out of the dispute.
The writ petition was disposed of with directions to restore the vehicle to the petitioner and pay ₹3 lakh as compensation for the violation of due process.
