Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner alleges that without his knowledge or his connivance certain people loaded certain illegally fallen wood in his tractor and when the said tractor was transporting the said wood, the tractor was seized and thereafter confiscation proceedings were commenced which are pending consideration. The petitioner says that he had made an application to the prescribed authority for release of the vehicle but instead of passing any order on the said application a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is further contended that alongwith me reply/show cause again an application for release of the vehicle was made but the said authority is not passing any order on the said release application. The petitioner says and submits that this Court should interfere and direct release of the tractor. 3. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition inter alia submitting that so long as the confiscation proceedings are pending neither the vehicle can be released nor the competent officer is required to release the vehicle. 4. I have heard the parties. 5. When proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act are started, a show cause notice is issued to the driver/ to the person who is with the vehicle and if the owner is not with the vehicle then to the owner also. Such an owner can always raise a defence before the competent officer/prescribed authority that the illegal transportation of the illegal fallen wood was without his knowledge or without his connivance. If he succeeds in proving his defence then the prescribed authority is obliged to release his vehicle. In the present case the prescribed authority is yet to record a finding in favour or contrary to the interest of the petitioner. 6. True it is that the prescribed authority has jurisdiction to grant or reject the application for release of the vehicle but such an authority cannot sit tied over the matter without passing an order. In a case like present where the vehicle in question remains in custody of the Forest Officer, the vehicle is not looked after by any person. Any damage to the vehicle is a loss to the owner of the vehicle. In a case like present where the vehicle in question remains in custody of the Forest Officer, the vehicle is not looked after by any person. Any damage to the vehicle is a loss to the owner of the vehicle. It is not expected of the prescribed authority or the forest officer that just to satisfy their fancy or whims they would have the custody of the vehicle and not decide the matter in relation to the confiscation proceedings finally. It is of common knowlege that if a vehicle remains idle and is not used for long it starts deteriorating every day and one fine morning its value becomes nill and on completion of the proceedings if the owner is exempted then instead of his running vehicle he would be returned back some junk. The forest officer/prescribed authority would not be answerable for anything because every action was taken by them in good faith and in the interest of the State. The perils, the pains suffered by such an owner would be beyond imagination specially in a case where the purchases of the vehicle was made after taking a loan from a Bank. No conscious person can allow a running vehicle to become a junk and cause a national loss. If a tractor is used by its owner for agricultural purposes or for any other purposes then it would earn some livelihood for him, he would also be required to pay tax to State and repay the loan to the Bank. In any case keeping the vehicle idle is not going to serve any purpose. It is advisable that such matters are taken up immediately and either the proceedings are brought to their logical end within a short span of time or the vehicle is released on some conditions to be put by the said prescribed authority. In any case keeping the vehicle idle would not serve any good purpose either in favour of the owner or in favour of the department. The department should not forget that if ultimately the vehicle is to be confiscated, it must have some value and not junk. After long time if the proceeding culminate into a direction for confiscation then the department must have vehicle which if is auctioned or sold in the market may fetch some value. The department should not forget that if ultimately the vehicle is to be confiscated, it must have some value and not junk. After long time if the proceeding culminate into a direction for confiscation then the department must have vehicle which if is auctioned or sold in the market may fetch some value. Keeping the vehicle in idle condition is certainly not going to do any favour to the department also. 7. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, I hereby direct the concerned prescribed authority to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The said authority shall determine the market value of the said vehicle, would require the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee for that sum and release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. It is made clear that if the proceedings are ultimately decided against the petitioner, then within a period to be fixed by the authority the petitioner shall surrender the vehicle, in case of failure of the petitioner to surrender the vehicle, the authority shall be entitled to encash the bank guarantee. 8. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. Copy be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.