JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition is filed for quashing the order dated 28.05.1997 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Confiscating authority, Giridih in Confiscation Case No. 67 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the Truck of the petitioner having registration no. BR-17A-6339 has been ordered to be confiscated. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 02.07.1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Giridih in Appeal No. 13/97 as also the order dated 18.08.2001 passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, in Revision Petition No. (C) 28/97 whereby both the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed. 3. The factual background of the case is that the petitioner received a notice issued by the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Confiscation Authority, Giridih vide Letter No. 3233 dated 14.11.1996 to show cause as to why Truck having registration no. BR-17A-6339 and the coal loaded therein should not be confiscated under section 52(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Act 9 of 1990) (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’). It was alleged in the show cause that the said Truck was seized at village-Kalyandih on 13.11.1996 while transporting coal after illegal mining in the Dhobidih Notified Forest Area. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause on 20.11.1996 stating that he has no concern with Truck having registration no. BR-17A-6339 rather he is the owner of Truck having registration no. BR-17A-6339(G), which on the alleged date of occurrence, was engaged by M/s Bihar and Refractory Mineral Barawadda for carriage of Fire bricks from the factory of M/s Premier Briquettes Industries, Mugma, Dhanbad. Finally vide order dated 28.05.1997, the Confiscating Authority confiscated the Truck having registration no. BR-17A-6339 with 5 to 6 tons of coal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal being Confiscation Appeal No. 13 of 1997 before the District Magistrate, Giridih which was dismissed on 02.09.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No. (C) 28/97 before the Secretary, Ministry of Forest & Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi which was also dismissed on 18.08.2001 by holding that the petitioner has failed to satisfy that he or his driver (agent) in terms of the Act were not involved in the commission of forest offence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih is illegal and without jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of confiscation passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih is illegal and without jurisdiction. Further, the order passed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih and the revisional order passed by the Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, also suffer from non-application of mind and, therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Truck, which was found carrying illegal forest produce (coal), was having Registration No. BR 17A-6339 whereas the registration number of the petitioner’s Truck is BR 17A-6339 (G) and since the said vehicle was never involved in commission of any forest offence, the confiscation of the same is also unwarranted. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner did not have any knowledge of commission of any forest offence and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 52(5) of the Act, the confiscation authority ought to have considered the said aspect while passing the order of confiscation of the petitioner’s Truck. However, the confiscating authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority passed the respective orders in contravention of Section 52(5) of the Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders being illegal are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has consistently been making false statement that Truck having registration nos. BR 17A-6339 and BR 17A-6339(G) are two different Trucks. The petitioner failed to prove the said fact before all the authorities and, therefore, the said plea cannot be taken at this stage. In fact, the Divisional Forest Officer, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and considering all the relevant facts involved in the case, has passed the order of confiscation and, therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. The appellate as well as the revisional authority have also passed the reasoned orders considering the factual plea taken by the petitioner and thus the same are also justified and legal. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, I find that so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Truck having registration nos. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, I find that so far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Truck having registration nos. BR 17A-6339 and BR 17A-6339(G) are two different trucks, the said fact has already been verified by the District Transport Officer, Dhanbad, who vide his letter no. 3785 dated 14.11.1996 and letter no. 1067 dated 14.05.1997 issued to the Divisional Forest Officers, Dhanbad and Giridih respectively informed that there is no difference between the Truck having registration nos. BR 17A-6339 and BR 17A-6339(G). The engine and chassis numbers are also the same. It has also been informed inter-alia that the name of the owner of the said Truck is Md. Sagir Alam (i.e. the writ petitioner). In that view of the said fact, I do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Truck of the petitioner was not involved in commission of the forest offence. 7. So far as the contention regarding the lack of knowledge on the part of the petitioner in commission of the forest offence is concerned, I find that the said plea was never taken by the petitioner in all the courts below. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed in contravention of Section 52(5) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is not tenable. 8. In the case of State of West Bengal and Another vs. Mahua Sarkar, (2008) 12 SCC 763 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of confiscation in terms with provision of Section 59-B (2) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Amendment made by West Bengal Act 22 of 1998) held thus:- "9. A bare reading of sub-section (2) of Section 59-B makes the position clear that no order confiscating any tool, rope chain, boat, vehicle or cattle shall be made under Section 59-A if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that such tool, rope, chain, boat, vehicle or cattle was used in carrying the timber or other forest produce without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself or his agent, if any, or the person in charge thereof and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use. 10. 10. The language used is very clear. It is the owner who has to prove that the vehicle was used in carrying timber or other forest produce without his knowledge or connivance or that of his agent. 11. The requirement is mandatory that the owner has to prove that he had no knowledge or had not connived. It is a matter which is within his knowledge. Mere assertion without anything else will not suffice. There is another requirement that either he or his agent, if any, or the person in-charge thereof had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use. This aspect has to be established by the concerned person by sufficient material. As noted above, mere assertion in that regard could not be sufficient." 9. There being three concurrent findings of facts by the courts below, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.