Poonam Kumari @ Poonam Devi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3643 of 2023 ====================================================== Poonam Kumari @ Poonam Devi W/o Yogendra Narayan Yadav Resident of Village- Tardih, Tole Bochahi, P.O.- Tardih, Police Station- Madhepur, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology, Vikash Bhawan, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Director of Mines, Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Collector, Madhubani.

4.

The District Mining Officer, Madhubani.

5.

The Inspector of Mines, Madhubani.

6.

The S.H.O., Madhepur Police Station, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA-7 For the Mines Dep.

:

Mr. Naresh Dikshit, Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Mines Department.

2. The present writ application is filed for the release of the petitioner's JCB (Backhoes Loader) bearing Registration no. BR-3G-9830 which was seized by the Respondent No. 5 at the instance of Respondent No. 6 in connection with Madhepur P.S. Case No. 266 of 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a detailed representation before the Respondent No 3, The Collector, Madhubani, but he has not taken any action.

Patna High Court CWJC No.3643 of 2023(3) dt.25-02-2025 2/2 Then, the petitioner has approached the Respondent No. 2, stating all the facts with regard to JCB machine in question. In turn, the Respondent No. 2 has written a letter to the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-6) stating therein that "Please, look the complaint of the petitioner and submit a report."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the direction of the Respondent No. 2, the Respondent No. 3 has not submitted any report as yet before the Respondent No. 2.

5. In view of the averments made in the writ application as well as Annexure-4 and Annexure-6 of the writ application, this writ application is disposed of with direction to the Respondent No. 3 to submit a report to the Respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks and Respondent No. 2 is directed to take a decision on the report of the Respondent No. 3 and inform the petitioner accordingly.

6. With the aforesaid direction, this writ application is disposed of.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) priyanka/- U