ORDER Manjunath, J The legality and the correctness of the order passed by the Fast Track Court-II and Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Criminal Appeal No. 129/2005 dated 27-5-2005 is called in question by the Authorised officer and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Belgaum Division, Belgaum. 2. On the receipt of the credible information by the Forest officer of Khanapur Forest Range that the truck bearing registration No. MEZ-4179 was illegally transporting the timber of the forest Sy. No. 30 of Harasanawadi Forest, seized the truck which was carrying the forest produce. A case was registered against the respondent for the offence committeed under the provisions of the Forest Act and a show cause notice was issued by the Authorised officer to the respondent as to why the truck should not be confiscated to the State. After hearing, the authorised officer ordered to confiscate the truck of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed an appeal before the Fast Track Court-II and additonal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Criminal Appeal No. 129/2004. In the appeal, the order of the authorised authority dated 29-302004 was modified and affirmed the order of confiscation. However, the Forest Department was directed to consider the market value of the vehicle through a propervaluer and confiscate 1/4th of its value to the Government and return the remaining sum to the respondent-owner within a period of tow months. Theis order is called in question in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Government Advocate so also the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Government advocate taking me through the orders passed by the Fast Track Court contends that the Fast Track Court without considering that the entire truck is confiscated, has erroneously directed the petitioner to confiscate only 1/4th of the market value and to return 3/4th ofthe value of the track to the respondent. According to him, when the orders of the authorised officer in regard to the confiscation of the vehicle has been upheld, question of passing such order does nto arise at all. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the writ petition and quash the direction issued by the Fast Track Court to recover only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle. 5. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the writ petition and quash the direction issued by the Fast Track Court to recover only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle. 5. According the learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent was out of station and he was innocent of the alleged offence and behind his back and without his back and without his knowledge the vehicle was used in transporting the forest produce. In view of the finding of the Fast Track Court, the respondent’s counsel requests the Court to remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 6. Having regard the learned councsel for the parties, the only point to be considered in this writ petition is, whether the direction issued by the Fast Track Court to the State of Karnataka to confiscate only 1/4th of market value of the seized vehicle is proper or not? 7. Admittedly, when once the vehicle is confiscated, the entire value of such vehicle would go to the State. The fast Track Court relying upon the provisons of the Tripura Forest Act, such an order is passed. When the Tripura Forest Act is not applicable to the Karnataka Forest Act, 1uestion of applying the provisiojns of law of different State and directing the State Government to confiscate only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle does not arise at all. 8. this Court could have considered the case of the respondent for remand provided the respondent had also challenged the order passed by the Fast Track Court. In the absence of filing of the writ petition by the respondent, this Court cannot consider his grievance. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The direction issued by the Fast Track Court as per Annexure-Adirecting the Government to confiscate only 1/4th of market value of the vehicle is hereby quashed.