JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The instant matter relates to the year, 1993 when the truck of the respondent writ petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'petitioner') was seized by the officials of the Forest Department on the allegation that it was carrying fresh cut wooden logs and fire wood of different trees without having any transit permit. The driver and the cleaner were allegedly arrested and on the basis of a written report a criminal case under Section 33(1), 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act was registered against the driver, the cleaner and the petitioner (owner of the truck). At the same time, proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act were also initiated against the petitioner for confiscation of his truck having Registration No. BR367065 for carrying the aforesaid forest materials. In Confiscation Case No. 04 of 1993 an order was passed on 23.04.1993 by the Divisional Forest for confiscation of the said truck registered in the name of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner moved Patna High Court through the medium of Cr.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1994 in which an order of release of the said truck was passed on furnishing surety bond of Rs. 2 lacs with two local sureties to the satisfaction of the concerned Deputy Commissioner with an undertaking that the aforesaid vehicle would be produced whenever so ordered by the Collector and/or any other authority. Ultimately, vide order dated 13.04.1996 the confiscation order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda which gave a cause to the petitioner to file revision petition being, Revision Petition No. C16 of 1996 before the Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Government of Bihar which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2000. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid three orders through the medium of C.W.J.C. No. 2634 of 2000 (P) which was allowed by the learned Writ Court vide impugned order dated 05.12.2013 directing the appellants (respondents before the Writ Court) to release the petitioner's truck forthwith. 2. The Court has been informed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the aforesaid truck is still being plied by him, being the registered owner of the said truck. 3. 2. The Court has been informed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the aforesaid truck is still being plied by him, being the registered owner of the said truck. 3. We find from the impugned judgment that one of the grounds which weighed with the learned Writ Court was the acquittal earned by the writ petitioner in the criminal case on which aspect Mr. Atanu Banerjee, the learned counsel for the appellants joined issue contending that the confiscation proceeding initiated under Section 52 of the Forest Act is altogether different from a criminal case registered for committing forest offence. He submitted that although the petitioner had earned acquittal in the criminal case, yet the confiscation proceeding being independent of all other proceedings could be brought to its logical end and therefore, the learned Writ Court should not have interfered with the orders passed in the confiscation proceeding on the ground of acquittal earned by the petitioner in the criminal case registered on the complaint of the forest officials. 4. We agree with the legal submissions advanced by Mr. Banerjee that only on the ground of acquittal in criminal case orders passed in confiscation proceedings cannot be quashed, but what we find from the impugned judgment is that the acquittal earned by the petitioner has been considered as an additional ground in favour of the petitioner whereas, the main reason for quashing the confiscation order of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka dated 23.04.1993 is that the said order is a non-speaking order and an unreasoned one. The order passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority are said to be merely paraphrase version of the order of the authorised officer without there being any discussion on the plea taken by the writ petitioner. 5. We, for our satisfaction, have perused the basic order dated 23.04.1993 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Dumka which has further been confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The said order in our considered view is sans any application of judicial mind. We feel it apt to reproduce the operative paragraphs of the impugned order in this context which read as under : 20. I find no legal basis for the finding recorded by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer. The said order in our considered view is sans any application of judicial mind. We feel it apt to reproduce the operative paragraphs of the impugned order in this context which read as under : 20. I find no legal basis for the finding recorded by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer. The orders of the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority are merely paraphrased version of the order of the Authorised Officer without discussion of evidence in support of their conclusions. 21. In view of the above discussion, the order dated 23rd April, 1993 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer in Confiscation Case No. 4 of 1993, the order dated 13th April, 1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appellate Authority) in Confiscation Appeal No. 01 of 199394 and the order dated 4th January, 2000 passed by the Secretary, Forest & Environment Department, Bihar, Patna (Revisional Authority) in Confiscation Revision No. 16 of 1996 are unsustainable in law and are, hereby, quashed. 6. Being that the factual position in the case on hand and the fact that the instant case relates back to the year, 1993 when the truck of the writ petitioner was confiscated by the forest officials on the allegation of carrying some forest materials without permit, we hereby decline to interfere with the impugned judgment. 7. The net result is that the instant appeal merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. 8. We hereby make it clear that the writ petitioner is discharged of the sureties furnished by him for release of the truck in terms of order dated 16.02.1994 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No. 140 of 1994. Consequently, I.A. No. 6508 of 2015, filed for stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the judgment dated 05.12.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2634 of 2000(P) stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.