Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 565 (PAT)

Arvind Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2019-04-12

SANJAY PRIYA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRIYA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.2.2016, passed by Principal Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna in Revision case nos. 28 of 2015 (in CWJC No. 6556 of 2016) and 26 of 2015 (in CWJC No. 6576 of 2016) as contained in Annexure-5, whereby and whereunder the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Government of Bihar, Patna, has been pleased to dismiss the revision of the petitioners affirming the order dated 30.06.2015, passed by the District Magistrate Rohtas at Sasaram in Forest Confiscation Appeal case nos. 63/2014 (in CWJC No. 6556 of 2016) and 62 of 2014 (in CWJC No. 6576 of 2016) as contained in Annexure-4 and order dated 30.8.2014, passed by Authorized-officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Sasaram in Confiscation case no. 52 of 2014 as contained in Annexure-3, arising out of Forest Case no. 42 of 2014 by which the Truck of the petitioners bearing Registration Nos. BR 24G/1879 (in CWJC No. 6556 of 2016) and BR 24G/1371, HR 38L/3239 and MP 19H/0221 (in CWJC No. 6576 of 2016) have been confiscated and further for directing the Authorized-Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Sasaram to release the Trucks bearing Registration nos. BR 24G/1879, BR 24G/1371, HR 38L/3239 and MP 19H/0221 in favour of the petitioners within a specified period. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that petitioners are aggrieved by order as contained in Annexures 3, 4 and 5 by which four truck belonging to the petitioners have been confiscated by the Forest authority in confiscation case no. 52 of 2014 arising out of Forest Case no. 42 of 2014 on the ground that they were found loaded with forest produce. 4. Petitioner of CWJC No. 6556 of 2016 claiming himself to be owner of truck bearing Registration No. BR 24G/1879 and petitioner of CWJC No. 6576 of 2016 claiming himself to be owner of three truck bearing registration nos. BR 24G/1371, HR 38L/3239 and MP 19H/0221. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that truck of the petitioners was seized near Mahavir Asthan, Gaurakshani in Sasaram-Ara road which is not prohibited Forest area. BR 24G/1371, HR 38L/3239 and MP 19H/0221. 5. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that truck of the petitioners was seized near Mahavir Asthan, Gaurakshani in Sasaram-Ara road which is not prohibited Forest area. It has further been submitted that the truck was loaded with stone materials that is dust at the Crusher Machine of proprietor Arun Kumar Singhof M/s Anjani Stone Works at Majhauliya, Amas, District, Gaya for which valid mining challans were issued and drivers were in possession of valid Challans. The witnesses during their statement has spoken before the Confiscating Authority about possession of valid challans and items found loaded on the truck were not forest product. 6. It appears that the Confiscating Authority in its order as contained in Annexure 3 has noted the submission made in the show cause filed on behalf of petitioner of CWJC No. 6576 of 2016 but still has confiscated the trucks only on the ground that the trucks were loaded with forest produce i.e. stone dust. 7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in CWJC No. 6576 of 2016. The counsel for State in CWJC No. 6556 of 2016 has submitted that he has also received the instruction and has taken the similar stand as taken by the State in CWJC No. 6576 of 2016. The petitioners have enclosed the copy of the challans issued in favour of the aforesaid stone dust in both the writ petitions which have been annexed as Annexures 1, 1/1 and 1/2. 8. This Court, after looking into the valid challans issued in favour of the aforesaid loaded stone dust and also the statement of the witnesses in the show cause which is mentioned in detail in the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3, finds that all the petitioners have stated before the Confiscating Authority that the articles loaded on the trucks were not forest produce. The trucks were loaded with stone dust on the basis of valid challans. The materials going towards Sasaram-Ara road was seized near Mahavir Asthan, Gaurakshani which is not prohibited Forest area. It further appears that trucks were loaded with stone materials (dust) at the Crusher Machine of proprietor Arun Kumar Singh of M/s Anjani Stone Works at Majhauliya, Amas, District, Gaya. 9. The materials going towards Sasaram-Ara road was seized near Mahavir Asthan, Gaurakshani which is not prohibited Forest area. It further appears that trucks were loaded with stone materials (dust) at the Crusher Machine of proprietor Arun Kumar Singh of M/s Anjani Stone Works at Majhauliya, Amas, District, Gaya. 9. This Court finds that the Confiscating Authority without considering the papers and case of the petitioners has ordered for confiscating the aforesaid trucks. Similarly, both Appellant Authority as well as the Revisional Authority without applying their mind in mechanical manner affirmed the order passed by the Confiscating Authority. Therefore, the orders as contained in Annexures 3, 4 and 5 are set aside. 10. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nawada (respondent no. 4) is directed to release the trucks of the petitioners bearing Registration No. BR 24G/1879 (CWJC No. 6556 of 2016), BR 24G/1371, HR 38L/3239 and MP 19H/0221 (CWJC No. 6576 of 2016) within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order after proper verification of the papers relating to ownership. The petitioners will file affidavit that they will not dispose of the trucks in-question during pendency of the criminal case, if any and will produce the trucks in-question as and when required by the criminal Court. 11. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.