1 S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.418/2008. RAJENDRA SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. DATE OF ORDER ::: 03-11-2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. M. TOTLA Mr. C. S. Kotwani, for Petitioner. Mr. O. P. Rathi, PP, for the State. According to the petitioner and also as is argued, Truck No. RJ-19- G-4399 – seized in the year, 2005 under Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – was ordered to be given in custody of the petitioner on his furnishing of bank guarantee in the sum of Rs. 60,000/- along with Supurdginama and surety of Rs. 3 lacs are ordered on 4.8.05 in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.491/2005. Petitioner, preferring this petition, requests permission to sale the vehicle may be accorded to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that vehicle was seized in the year, 2005, allegedly for transportation of mineral without payment of royalty amount and as per orders of this Court, petitioner submitted bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.60,000/- along with Supurdginama and surety of Rs. 3 lacs and the vehicle is in possession of petitioner. Argued that bank guarantee is in force and department can recover the amount invoking this bank guarantee. Submitted that more than 3 years have elapsed since the seizure of the vehicle and due to some constraints, wants to sell this vehicle, so permission may be accorded. Further argued that bank guarantee of Rs.60,000/- in favour of Mining Engineer is submitted so interest of department is safeguarded and in the event of dismissal of petitioner's appeal before the Additional Director, the department can realize the amount. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that no complaint or any proceeding is initiated before the Magistrate's Court or any other judicial 2 Court. Further submitted that since the vehicle was seized by the mining department and as the petitioner's appeal is pending before the competent authority, so only that authority may pass appropriate orders considering all aspects of the matter. Considered. As per order dated 4.8.05 passed in S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.491/2005, possession of the vehicle was given on furnishing of bank guarantee along with Supurdginama of Rs. 3 lacs and surety before the concerned mining authorities having jurisdiction. Since the bank guarantee was to be furnished before the concerned mining authority having jurisdiction and as is submitted, so there can hardly be any bar for competent authority to pass the appropriate order regarding vehicle. As per petition, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector (Mines). It is also submitted that the bank guarantee/fixed deposit is in force and the recovery of the amount is secured. Be that as it may, certainly, the competent authorities before whom the appeal/proceeding is pending, may pass appropriate order, considering all aspects of the matter and also keeping in view the interest of department regarding recovery of entire amount including penalty etc. Vehicle was seized by the mining authorities – on providing bank guarantee of Rs.60,000/- along with submission of Supurdginama and surety, the vehicle was ordered to be released on prescribed conditions. There is nothing to preclude the department or the competent authority to decide the matter. Accordingly, it is directed that the competent authority is at liberty to pass an appropriate order as per law and facts considering all aspects of the matter, including secured realization or recovery of royalty, penalty etc. payable to the department. With these observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. (C. M. TOTLA), J. 3 scd