NURE ALAM CHOWDHURY, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on behalf of Shri Ram Chandra Singh, owner of a vehicle bearing No. WB-03/0799 is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-7-96, passed by the Ld. Addl. District Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri being the Appellate Authority under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1993 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 21-12-92 in Case No. 4937/15-222 and 28-5-93 in case No. 2361/15/222 and 28-5-93 in Case No. 2361/15/222 by the Authorised Officer, Jalpaiguri District under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act confiscating the vehicle No. WB-03/0799 of the petitioner. The Ld. Judge, the Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Authorised Officers as well as his aforesaid orders dated 21-12-92 and 28-5-93. ( 2 ) FACTS leading to the instant application before this Court may be briefly stated as follows :-THE petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing No. WB-03/0799. On 8-8-92, Shri Mihir Kumar Dey, Deputy Ranger/forester, in charge of Teesta Bridge Forest Check Post received secret information that the vehicle in question loaded with timber was likely to pass through the Teesta Bridge Forest Check Post. The message was communicated by Sri Dey to the Range Officer, NPP-1 Range who was on duty then, and accordingly his staff was alerted as the vehicle did not approach till 3-30 P. M. , the Forest Officials went out for patrolling along the highway in search of the truck and about 3-45 P. M. the Truck was sighted near the junction of highway and Changrabandha Road. At the sight of the vehicle of the Forest Department, the said truck bearing No. WB-03-0799 suddenly turned towards left and ran towards Changrabandha in full speed. The Forest Officials chased the truck and over took it at Changrabandha. After detection the truck was found fully loaded with freshly cut green shall timbers and was covered with tarpaulin and steel sheets. On demand by the forest officials, the driver failed to show any document or transit pass in support of valid and legal possession of those timbers being carried away by the said truck. After detection the truck was found fully loaded with freshly cut green shall timbers and was covered with tarpaulin and steel sheets. On demand by the forest officials, the driver failed to show any document or transit pass in support of valid and legal possession of those timbers being carried away by the said truck. Those timbers did not have any Government hammer marks and accordingly the forest officials seized 215 pieces of Shal sawn timber measuring about 12090 cubic meters and the said truck as well and also arrested the driver and the khalasi of the truck. ( 3 ) SHRI Mihir Kumar Dey, Officer in charge of Teesta Bridge Forest Check Post then recorded the statement of the driver of the truck Shri Jainal Akhtar who conferred that the rate for carrying timbers to Ultadanga, Calcutta was fixed by him at Rs. 6,500/- when he met the Dalal at Basirhat. Seizure list was also prepared regarding the seizure of the said timbers and the truck. Jamal Akhtar and Jogen Karmakar were the driver and khalasi respectively of the said trucks, were produced before the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, for committing offence under the Indian Forest Act 1927 and under the West Bengal Forest Produce Transit Rules 1958 as amended. After observing those formalities, Shri M. K. Dey, Forest Officer reported the matter of the aforesaid search and seizure to the Authorised Officer of the Jalpaiguri district under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, of the Jalpaiguri District. ( 4 ) THE Authorised Officer, Jalpaiguri District (Divisional Forest Officer, Jalpaiguri Division) issued notice on 24-9-92 to the petitioner who is the registered owner of the truck and directed him to show cause why the truck bearing No. WB-03-0799 should not be confiscated to the State of West Bengal as provided for, under Section 59a (3) of the Indian Forest Act (West Bengal Amendment Act, 1988 ). The petitioner, the registered owner of the truck appeared before the Authorised Officer and filed a petition praying for release of the truck on the ground that the said truck was placed under the disposal of Public Carrier Company and as the said company was the custodian of the said truck and was entrusted to look after the said truck, the petitioner the registered owner had no knowledge of any offence under the Indian Forest Act being committed either by the driver or any other person with the use of the truck and thus so far as the petitioner as the registered owner was concerned, he was only concerned with hire charges of the truck payable to him and he was in no way responsible for carrying any goods consigned in the said truck. It was further stated in the said petition that the petitioner came to know through his nephew Janardan Singh, his lawfully constituted attorney that N. B. Carrier Company could not give satisfactory answer about the whereabouts of the truck and thereafter, in course of search the said lawfully constituted attorney came to learn that the truck has been seized by the Forest Department in connection with the alleged offence. It was also contended in the said petition before the Authorised Officer that the petitioner was the bona fide owner and he had no knowledge of the alleged offence under the Indian Forest Act committed by the driver or the khalasi of the truck. Accordingly he prayed for release of the truck on the ground that he was sustaining (loss) for absence of the vehicle. ( 5 ) WHILE the said confiscation proceeding was pending before the Authorised Officer, the petitioner moved a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen by his order dated 3-12-92, had been placed to direct the Authorised Officer to pass a reasoned order on the application of the registered owner with further direction that such decision was to be taken on or before 21-12-92, but the same would not be given effect to till 10th January 1993, without the leave of the Hon'ble Court. When the said order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court, decision of the Authorised Officer did not come into being. However, the Ld. When the said order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court, decision of the Authorised Officer did not come into being. However, the Ld. Authorised Officer, after recording the statement of the registered owner of the truck represented by his constituted attorney, passed an elaborate reasoned owner holding that the petition for release of the vehicle was liable to be rejected and accordingly the Authorised Officer confiscated the seized truck No. WB-03-0799 under Section 59a (3) of the Indian Forest (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1988, by order dated 21-12-92. ( 6 ) THE petitioner again moved the Hon'ble High Court with a writ petition challenging the said order of the Authorised Officer and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen by his judgment and order dated 3-5-93, had been pleased to observe that since there is no finding whether the driver was employed by the owner or not, the registered owner was given liberty to prove before the concerned authority that he did not employ the driver, and in the event such fact is proved, the concerned officer would release the vehicle forthwith and the confiscation proceeding would stand withdrawn. ( 7 ) PURSUANT to the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 3-5-93, the Authorised Officer by his order dated 28-5-93, in case No. 2361/15-222 observed the petitioner failed to prove to his satisfaction that the driver of the offending vehicle was not employed by him and accordingly he concluded that the vehicle could not be released. The petitioner preferred appeal against orders dated 21-12-92 and 28-5-93, passed by the Authorised Officer before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority Ld. Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Jalpaiguri by his judgment and order dated 17-7-96 in Misc. Appeal No. 18 of 1993, has been pleased to dismiss the appeal on contest and affirmed the orders dated 21-12-92 and 28-5-93, passed by the Authorised Officer. ( 8 ) APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner in this Court Mr. J. N. Ram, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge about the aforesaid acts of the driver of the truck. Moreover, the truck was given by the petitioner to M/s. N. B. Carrier on hire and as such the petitioner had nothing to do with the said truck except to get the hire-charges from N. B. Carrier in respect of the truck. Moreover, the truck was given by the petitioner to M/s. N. B. Carrier on hire and as such the petitioner had nothing to do with the said truck except to get the hire-charges from N. B. Carrier in respect of the truck. It is further submitted that nothing appears from the statement of the driver that the petitioner was present or had knowledge or connivance in respect of the alleged offence and the findings against the petitioner have been arrived at on extraneous considerations and as such the truck should be returned to him and should not be confiscated. ( 9 ) MR. D. P. Sengupta, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that the application under Section 227 of the Constitution is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 59d (2) of the Indian Forest Act in which it has been specifically stated that the order of the District Judge shall be final and shall not be called in question by any Court. He further submitted that there being no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order of the Ld. Additional District Judge, this Court should not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 10 ) HAVING heard the Ld. Advocates on behalf of the petitioner and perused records I find that the Ld. Additional District Judge has elaborately dealt with every aspect of the case in the appeal and I do not find any reason to take any contrary regarding the findings and order of the Ld. Judge. ( 11 ) THIS application therefore, fails and is dismissed on contest. There will however be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.