Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 919 (JHR)

Rahul Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2021-10-28

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defect, as pointed out by the office, is ignored. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon respondent no. 2 the District Magistrate-cum-Appellate Authority, Hazaribagh to expeditiously dispose of Appeal No. 18 of 2020. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s vehicle (truck) bearing registration no. JH-02AH-2496 was confiscated vide order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh West Forest Division in Confiscation Case No. 1 (A)/2019-G. (F) Case No. 31 of 2019 on the allegation that the said vehicle was involved in commission of forest offence under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal being Confiscation Appeal No. 14 of 2019 in the court of the respondent no. 2 who remanded the matter to the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 again passed the order dated 21.10.2020 maintaining its earlier order dated 16.08.2019 with modification that the word “coal” mentioned in last line of earlier order would be replaced with “Carbonaceous shell” and the last part of earlier order was modified to be read as “Hence under the Powers conferred under Sec. 52(3) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Bihar Amendment 1989) the aforesaid vehicle is confiscated along with carbonaceous shell loaded over it.” It is further submitted that the petitioner again preferred appeal before the respondent no. 2 on 06.11.2020 against the order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3 which was registered as Confiscation Appeal No. 18 of 2020, hearing of which was concluded in the month March, 2021 and the order/judgment was to be pronounced by the respondent no. 2 thereafter. The petitioner repeatedly visited the court of the respondent no. 2, however the said appeal has not yet been disposed of, which has compelled the petitioner to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Varun Prabhakar, learned AC to GP-III appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the order/judgment might not have been passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 18 of 2020 by the respondent no. 2 owing to the fact that after conclusion of hearing, the country faced the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the said appeal would be disposed of expeditiously by the respondent no. 2. 5. 2 owing to the fact that after conclusion of hearing, the country faced the second wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, the said appeal would be disposed of expeditiously by the respondent no. 2. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Appeal No. 18 of 2020 was finally heard by the respondent no. 2 in the month of March, 2021 and thereafter appropriate order/judgment was to be pronounced as well as considering that several months have passed since March, 2021, the respondent no. 2 is directed to fix the said appeal for fresh argument on behalf of the parties after issuance of notices to them and thereafter to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction.