Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 783 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Chaudhary v. State of Bihar

2019-05-15

SANJAY PRIYA

body2019
SANJAY PRIYA, J.:–Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This writ application has been filed for issuance of direction to Respondent No. 4 to release seized Dumper of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BR-24-G-5213 in connection with Forest Case No. 10 of 2014 arising out of Confiscation Case No. 17 of 2014, during pendency of the instant writ application or till final disposal of Forest Case No. 10 of 2014 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is owner of the vehicle (Dumper) bearing Registration No. BR-24- G-5213. He further submits that vehicle of the petitioner was not confiscated from any protected forest area. He submits that as per Confiscation order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer cum Authorizsed Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram (Respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure-3, it is mentioned that aforesaid vehicle was seized near Sasaram Toll Plaza at Kolkata-Delhi NH-02. 4. The case of the Forest Officer is that on 13.2.2014 during raid in Fazilpur Forest protected area, he saw one vehicle started running away loaded with stone metal. The vehicle was chased and ultimately was apprehended near Sasaram Toll Plaza at Kolkata-Delhi NH-02. It is further alleged that driver of the vehicle by using Hydraulic system, unloaded the metal stone loaded in the vehicle. It is alleged that 25 CFT Metal Stone was found loaded in the vehicle in question. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that vehicle of the petitioner was found empty. It is wrongly stated by the Forest Officer that 25 CFT metal was found loaded on the vehicle. He further submits that nature of Metal found on the vehicle has not been mentioned by the Respondents Authority. The authority has no where mentioned that recovered 25 CFT of Stone Metal on the vehicle was recovered from the forest protected area. 6. This Court finds that Respondent No. 4 while passing Confiscation order has not considered the case of the petitioner in right perspective and has illegally confiscated the vehicle (Dumper) of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority have affirmed the order of Confiscating Authority in mechanical manner. 6. This Court finds that Respondent No. 4 while passing Confiscation order has not considered the case of the petitioner in right perspective and has illegally confiscated the vehicle (Dumper) of the petitioner. The Appellate Authority have affirmed the order of Confiscating Authority in mechanical manner. In such circumstances, orders passed by the authority as contained in Annexures-3, 5 and 6 of the writ application are not in accordance with law. 7. Counsel for the State has appeared and submitted that in the Revisional order it is mentioned that the vehicle was found loaded with stone metal from the forest protected area. 8. This Court finds that only vague statement has been made by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority in the impugned order that the stone mental of 25 CFT was of protected forest area. There is no description of the stone metal and no details about forest area from which they have been loaded. 9. In such circumstances, orders contained in Annexures-3, 5 and 6 to the writ petition are not in accordance with law and the same are hereby set aside. 10. The Respondent No. 4 i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, is directed to release Dumper of the petitioner bearing Registration No.BR 24-G-5213 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after proper verification of the relevant documents. The petitioner will file affidavit that he will produce the vehicle in question as and when required by the trial court and will not dispose of the vehicle till disposal of Forest Case. 11. This writ application is accordingly allowed.