The Rajasthan High Court has clarified the legal framework governing the release of vehicles seized for violations of mining laws, establishing a clear distinction between interim custody and formal confiscation proceedings. This judgment resolves a recurring procedural conflict faced by law enforcement and vehicle owners, providing critical guidance on when courts may intervene and when administrative authority prevails.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shobha Lal Jat, sought the release of his vehicle bearing registration number RJ-51-EA-0809, which was seized by the Mines and Geology Department, Bhilwara, for alleged violation of mining regulations. The vehicle was detained without initiation of formal confiscation proceedings under the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1988. The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking release on the basis of a supurdaginama (undertaking of custody), arguing that no confiscation order had been passed and that the continued detention was unlawful.
Key Facts
- The vehicle was seized on or about 20.03.2026 by the Mining Engineer, Bhilwara, for alleged unauthorized mining activity
- No confiscation proceedings under Rule 37 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1988, were initiated as of the date of filing the petition
- The petitioner submitted a supurdaginama on 30.03.2026, offering to keep the vehicle under his custody pending adjudication
- The competent criminal court declined release on supurdaginama, relying on prior administrative practice
- The impugned order dated 02.04.2026 upheld the refusal to release the vehicle
Procedural History
- 20.03.2026: Vehicle seized by Mining Department, Bhilwara
- 30.03.2026: Petitioner submitted supurdaginama to criminal court for release
- 02.04.2026: Criminal court rejected release application, directing continued detention
- 07.04.2026: Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2750/2026 filed before Rajasthan High Court
- 07.04.2026: Hearing conducted; parties agreed to be bound by precedent in Chaina Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 597/2024, decided on 19.05.2025)
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought release of vehicle RJ-51-EA-0809 on supurdaginama, quashing of the order dated 02.04.2026, and direction to the competent court to release the vehicle pending conclusion of any future confiscation proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a criminal court may permit interim custody of a vehicle seized under mining laws on the basis of a supurdaginama when no formal confiscation proceedings have been initiated by the mining department.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the principle that criminal courts have inherent power to ensure that property is not unduly detained without due process. He argued that since no confiscation order had been passed under Rule 37 of the Rajasthan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1988, the continued detention of the vehicle was arbitrary and violated the petitioner’s right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution. He cited Chaina Ram to support the proposition that interim custody may be granted in the absence of initiated proceedings.
For the Respondent
The Additional Advocate General contended that the mining department has exclusive statutory authority to initiate and conclude confiscation proceedings. He argued that allowing criminal courts to release vehicles on supurdaginama undermines the administrative process and creates a loophole for evasion of penalties. He emphasized that the Chaina Ram judgment did not grant an absolute right to release but conditioned it on the absence of initiated proceedings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the matter was no longer res integra, having been authoritatively settled in Chaina Ram v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 597/2024, decided on 19.05.2025). The Court reaffirmed the distinction drawn in that judgment between two scenarios: (1) where confiscation proceedings have been initiated, and (2) where they have not.
"It is once the confiscation proceedings are initiated, the vehicle cannot be released on supurdaginama as prayed by few of the petitioners. However, the said vehicles can only be released on payment of penalty and compounding fees. Whereas, the vehicles qua which no confiscation proceedings have yet been commenced, the competent criminal Court can handover interim custody of the vehicles to its true owner as a criminal Court is not supposed to keep a vehicle detained until the confiscation proceedings are commenced and concluded by the mining department."
The Court held that the criminal court’s role is not to substitute the administrative authority but to prevent unlawful detention. Where the mining department has not yet commenced formal proceedings, the vehicle remains subject to civil ownership rights, and the criminal court may permit interim custody to avoid irreparable loss to the owner. However, this does not preclude the department from initiating proceedings later and reclaiming the vehicle.
The Court further clarified that any prior release on supurdaginama does not extinguish the state’s right to initiate confiscation proceedings, and the department retains full authority to act under the mining rules.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The order dated 02.04.2026 was set aside. The petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before the competent criminal court for release of vehicle RJ-51-EA-0809 on supurdaginama. The court shall decide the application in accordance with the observations in Para 8 of the Chaina Ram judgment dated 19.05.2025. All pending applications are disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Custody Is Conditional on Non-Initiation of Proceedings
- Practitioners must verify whether confiscation proceedings under Rule 37 have been formally initiated before filing for release on supurdaginama
- If no order under Rule 37 has been passed, the criminal court has jurisdiction to grant interim custody
- A mere seizure without initiation of proceedings does not justify prolonged detention
State Authority Remains Intact Post-Release
- Release on supurdaginama does not bar the mining department from initiating confiscation proceedings at any later stage
- The department may reclaim the vehicle upon issuance of a confiscation order, even if the owner has been in possession for months
- Legal notices under Rule 37 must be served promptly to preserve the state’s right to reclaim
Criminal Courts Must Not Act as Administrative Bodies
- Courts should not assume the role of the mining department in determining penalties or compounding fees
- Release on supurdaginama is a procedural safeguard, not a substitute for statutory compliance
- Petitioners must be advised to pursue compounding under Rule 37 if they wish to avoid confiscation
