In a sharp rebuke to administrative authorities, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a truck forfeiture order passed by the Collector of Chhindwara, calling the entire process “mechanical and careless.” The court not only quashed the order but also imposed costs of ₹50,000 on the State.
Background of the Case
The case arose after a truck was intercepted in Chhindwara district for allegedly transporting minerals without valid permission. Acting under the M.P. Minerals (Illegal Excavation, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2022, the authorities seized the vehicle and initiated proceedings.
Read also:- CJI Surya Kant Recuses, SC Shifts EC Appointment Act Challenge to Independent Bench
The action was based largely on the statement of the truck driver, who claimed that the vehicle belonged to the petitioner, Sarang Raghuwanshi. Relying on this, the mining authorities submitted a report, and the Collector subsequently ordered forfeiture of the vehicle.
However, the petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court, arguing that he was not the registered owner of the truck.
The bench, comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, closely examined the record and found serious lapses in the process.
The court noted that official registration documents clearly showed the truck was registered in the name of another individual, Balveer Singh. Despite this, no effort was made by the authorities to verify ownership or record the statement of the registered owner.
Read also:- Earning Wife Still Deserves Support, Says Gujarat HC While Upholding ₹15K Maintenance
Criticising the approach, the bench observed,
“The entire proceedings have been initiated solely on the basis of the driver’s statement.”
The judges expressed concern that such a serious action leading to forfeiture was taken without basic verification. They remarked that the petitioner was wrongly treated as the owner and held liable without proper inquiry.
The court further came down heavily on the Collector’s role, stating that the matter was not examined independently. Instead, the report of the subordinate officer was accepted without scrutiny.
Read also:- Supreme Court Quashes Copyright Case Against Filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh Over ‘Kahaani 2’
In a strong remark, the bench said,
“It is very unfortunate that the Collector, being a senior IAS officer, did not care to examine the facts and blindly accepted the report.”
The court also emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities are expected to act with fairness and apply judicial reasoning, especially when imposing heavy penalties.
Setting aside the impugned order dated January 27, 2025, the High Court held it to be unsustainable in law.
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to pay ₹50,000 as costs to the petitioner. It further ordered that the amount be recovered from the officers responsible for the lapses.
Case Details
Case Title: Sarang Raguwanshi vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 11018 of 2025
Decision Date: March 13, 2026
Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Shri Shoeb Hasan Khan
- For State: Smt. Janhavi Pandit, Additional Advocate General
