ORDER 8.5.2006 — Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 5.3.2005 passed by the District Judge, Khurda at Bhubanes¬war in M.A. No.79 of 2000 (Annexure-9) confiscating the vehicle bearing Registration number OR-05-E-5657. The appellate authority has confirmed the order passed by the Authorized Officer. The only point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this proceeding is that before confiscating the vehicle in ques¬tion, no notice was given to the owner of the vehicle - Shri Santosh Kumar Sahoo. We find from the record that such a question was also raised, both before the Authorized Officer and the appellate authority, but none of them considered the said question in its proper perspective having regard to the facts of the case. It appears that on 5.5.2000 the writ petition filed by Santosh Kumar Sahoo (present petitioner) for interim release of the said vehi¬cle was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court with the following order : “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not inclined to entertain this writ application at this stage. However, the petitioner may approach the Authorised Officer, the D.F.O., Khurda with an application for interim release of the vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-05-E-5657. If such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of filing. The writ application is accordingly disposed of.” Pursuant to the said order, one Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate appeared before the D.F.O. with a prayer for interim release of the vehicle. Such appearance of Mr. B. S. Tripathy seems to have been made on 18.5.2000. Thereafter, on 22.5.2000, the record was put up by the D.F.O. before the Authorised Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of Forests and an application was made by Mr. B.S. Tripathy before the Authorised Officer on that date. The fact remains that a notice was issued before initiation of the confis¬cating proceeding on one Santosh Kumar Sahu, who affirmed an affidavit before the Executive Magistrate, Talcher to the extent that he was a student of Talcher College and he was not the owner of the vehicle in question. It was also stated by him in the said affidavit that he did not engage any advocate or pleader on his behalf to conduct the case before the Authorised Officer. It was also stated by him in the said affidavit that he did not engage any advocate or pleader on his behalf to conduct the case before the Authorised Officer. Copy of the said affidavit is annexed as Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit filed by the State. A plain perusal of the signature of the deponent Shri San¬tosh Kumar Sahu in the said affidavit and the signature of San¬tosh Kumar Sahoo in the R.C. Book as well the signature of Santosh Kumar Sahoo in the previous writ application shows that the signature in the affidavit vide Annexure-A/2 is not of the same person i.e. the present petitioner. Therefore, a prima facie case has been made out by the petitioner that notice was not properly given to him by the Authorised Officer before the con¬fiscation proceeding was held. It may be mentioned here that another writ petition being O.J.C. No.14293 of 2001 was filed by Santosh Kumar Sahoo, the original owner of the vehicle in ques¬tion and in that writ application, a Division Bench of this Court directed interim release of the vehicle with certain conditions. The said order dated 13.12.2001 could not be carried out inasmuch as prior to that date, the vehicle was confiscated by the Autho¬rised Officer. In view of aforesaid infirmities in the proceeding, we cannot sustain either the order of the Authorized Officer or the order of the appellate authority. On this ground alone that no proper notice was given to the petitioner before the vehicle was directed to be confiscated, we aside the confiscation proceeding. Accordingly, we allow this writ application, and quash Annexures-7 and 9 and direct the Authorised Officer-cum-Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the confiscation proceeding expeditious¬ly, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. For that purpose, we direct Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner to appear before the Authorised Officer on behalf of the writ petitioner either personally or through his associate on 23.5.2006. We make it clear that no further notice need be given to the petitioner as the date is fixed in presence of his coun¬sel. Once the appearance of Shri Santosh Kumar Sahoo is made, the Authorised Officer shall proceed with the matter and dispose of the same expeditiously. We make it clear that no further notice need be given to the petitioner as the date is fixed in presence of his coun¬sel. Once the appearance of Shri Santosh Kumar Sahoo is made, the Authorised Officer shall proceed with the matter and dispose of the same expeditiously. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to produce the certified copy of this order before the Authorised Officer-cum-Opposite Party No.1. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Application allowed.