Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1062 (PAT)

Ganesh Ram Dokania v. State Of Bihar

1999-10-06

AFTAB ALAM

body1999
Judgment 1. The petitioner is the owener of a truck bearing registration no. BRJ 6620 in respect of which an order of confiscation, dated 27.11.1998 was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Banka in Confiscation Case No. 6/98, under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. Against that order the petitioner preferred an appeal, before the Collector, Banka which was registered as Forest Appeal No. 50/98-99. The Collector by order dated 8/9.6.1999 (Annexure -2) gave an interim direction for the release of the truck during the pendency of the appeal. Against the interim order of release the department moved the Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Forest Department who by his order, dated 31.7.1999 stayed the order of release passed by the Collector. This petition under Article 226 has been filed challenging the order, dated 31.7.1999 passed by the Secretary cum Commisioner of the Department. 2. Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, learned Sr.Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, assailed the order staying the release of the truck on a simple though effective ground. He submitted that under section 52B of the Indian Forest Act, as amended in this State a revision would lie only against a final order or an order of consequential nature passed by the appellate authority. No revision would lie against an interim direction of the nature passed by the Appellate authority for the release of the truck during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. Jha further pointed out that save and except the revisions provision there was no other provisions in the Act under which the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the department could have passed the impugned order. 3. Mr. R.K. Dutta, learned S.C.IV defended the order passed by the Secretary-cum- Commissioner on the basis of the provisions of section 52 (C) of the Act. 4. Section 52C creates a bar of jursidiction of court when a confiscation proceeding is initiated for an offence committed under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and I am unable to see how the provisions of section 52C can be said to confer upon the Secretary-cum-Commissioner the authority to entertain petition/revision arising from an interim order passed by the competent or appellate authority while the main proceeding remained pending at the lower stages. 5. According to Mr. Dutta the bar created by section 52C would necessarily imply such powers with the Secretary- cum-Commissioner. I am unable to agree with the submission and in my view Mr. 5. According to Mr. Dutta the bar created by section 52C would necessarily imply such powers with the Secretary- cum-Commissioner. I am unable to agree with the submission and in my view Mr. Jha is quite correct in his submission that no revision lay before the Commissioner cum Secretary of the department against the interim direction for the release of the truck passed by the appellate authority and the order dated 31.7.1999 passed by the Secretary cum Commissioner is therefore without jurisdiction. It is accordingly set aside. This would restore the interim direction for the release of the truck passed by the Collector. However, the Collector is directed to take steps for the final disposal of the appeal itself without any further delay and preferably within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. In the result, this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.