Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 3 (UTT)

NASEEM AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2017-01-05

U.C.DHYANI

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) The petitioner, by means of present criminal writ petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 01.04.2015 passed by the Authorized Officer/Divisional Forest Officer, Tarai Pashchmi Van Prabhag, Ramnagar, District- Nainital in Misc. Case No. 22-4/Bailpadav, Year 2014-15 “State Versus Naseem Ahmad” and order dated 29.05.2015, passed by the Appellate Authority/Forest Conservator, Pashchmi Vritt, Uttarakhand Haldwani, District-Nainital in Appeal No. 06/2015-16 “Naseem Ahmad Versus State.” 2. As per seizure report, on 17.01.2015, one J.C.B. machine (Utkhanak) bearing registration no. UKD-6034 was confiscated, as the same was found in illegal mining. On the same day at 7:05 a.m., the said J.C.B. was seized by a team comprising of forest officials, police officials and revenue officials. The same was confiscated by the Divisional Forest Officer, Bailpadav, Forest Division, Ramnagar under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act (Uttarakhand amendment). Against the same order, an appeal was preferred before the Conservator of Forests, Western Circle, Uttarakhand, Haldwani. The Appellate Authority/Conservator of Forests, Western Circle, Uttarakhand, Haldwani dismissed the appeal no.06 of 2015-16. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal writ petition has been filed on behalf of the writ petitioner. 3. When the present criminal writ petition was taken up for hearing on 15.06.2015, following interim order was passed by the coordinate bench of this Court: “In view thereof, let the vehicle be released in favour of the petitioner on the same conditions (referred above).” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the vehicle in question has already been released in favour of the petitioner, hence, the aforesaid interim order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court be made absolute. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned judgments, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Criminal writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the said submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim order dated 15.06.2015 passed by coordinate bench of this Court be made absolute. Interim order dated 15.06.2015 is, therefore, made absolute. The impugned orders are hereby quashed accordingly.