Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 651 (JHR)

Manohar Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2021-08-23

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 29th July, 2020 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribag West Forest Division, Hazaribag the respondent no. 3 in Confiscation Case No. 24 of 2005 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No. 90 of 2005. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a confiscation proceeding being Confiscation Case No. 24 of 2005 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No. 90 of 2005 was initiated by the respondent no. 3 for confiscation of a truck bearing registration no. WB-37-4563 along with 16 tons of coal loaded over the same. The said case was disposed of by the respondent no. 3 on 18th July, 2011 passing the order of confiscation of the said truck along with 16 tons of Disco coal loaded over the same. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order preferred Confiscation Appeal Case No. 04 of 2011 in the court of the Deputy Commisioner, Hazaribag-the respondent no. 2. The said appeal was disposed of by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 22nd November, 2017 by remanding the matter to the respondent no. 3 for passing a fresh order in terms with the observations made thereunder. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 3, on remand, has passed the impugned order dated 29th July, 2020 in a cryptic manner without taking into consideration the observations made by the respondent no. 2 i.e. the appellate authority in the order dated 22nd November, 2017. 4. Keeping in view the said grievance of the petitioner, it is not understood as to why the petitioner did not prefer fresh appeal in the court of the respondent no. 2 to assail the order dated 29th July, 2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 which according to him is not in terms with the observations made by the appellate authority while remanding the matter. Nevertheless, the said situation does not give any excuse to the petitioner to bypass the provision of appeal and to directly file writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29th July, 2020 passed by the respondent no. 3. Nevertheless, the said situation does not give any excuse to the petitioner to bypass the provision of appeal and to directly file writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29th July, 2020 passed by the respondent no. 3. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition as the same is not maintainable at this stage. 5. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to prefer an appeal in the court of the respondent no. 2 challenging the order dated 29th July, 2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 in Confiscation Case No. 24 of 2005 arising out of Barhi P.S. Case No. 90 of 2005. If the petitioner prefers such an appeal before the respondent no. 2, the same shall be entertained on merit by taking an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of filing of the said appeal. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable with aforesaid observation.