JUDGMENT : Since in both these petitions, the common questions of law and facts are involved, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment. 2. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek directions for quashing the seizure order dated 01.07.2018 [in WP (M/S) No. 813 of 2022, the seizure is made in Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 and in WP (M/S) No. 814 of 2022, the seizure is made in Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018]. The petitioners in both these writ petitions also seek release of the timber seized by the respondent authorities. FACTS WP (M/S) No. 813 of 2022 3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 2 Anand Singh sought permission to cut down 30 trees of Khair standing on his land bearing Plot No. 3602, 3603, 3604, and 3605, situated at Village Banas, P.O. Kimsar, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal. The respondent no. 2 accorded permission to cut down the trees vide its order dated 25.05.2018. Thereafter the chronology is as follows:- (i) The trees were marked by the Forest Department on 27.05.2018. (ii) The petitioner no. 2 Anand Singh sold the sanctioned trees to the petitioner no. 1 Shobhit Thapliyal on 01.06.2018. (iii) After cutting the trees, the logs and other parts of the timber were measured by the Forest Department on 18.06.2018 and they found that the total produce were 302 logs admeasuring 8.668 cubic meters and roots to the tune of 80 quintals. (iv) On a request made, the respondent no. 2 permitted transportation of the logs in two trucks, by his communication dated 30.06.2018. (v) The petitioners were transporting the logs and other material in Truck No. UK 12 CB-1622 on 01.07.2018. (vi) The transit pass was accordingly issued on 01.07.2018. It had 155 logs of 4.147 cubic meters and roots to the tune of 40 quintals only. (vii) On the way, the truck was inspected by the Forest Authorities and it was found that it was carrying timber different than the transit pass, and more in quantity. It was carrying 280 logs of 9.733 cubic meters. (viii) Accordingly, the timber was taken into custody and Range Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 was lodged against the petitioner Anand Singh and others. (ix) The petitioners sought release of the vehicle by making an application to the respondent no. 2. It was carrying 280 logs of 9.733 cubic meters. (viii) Accordingly, the timber was taken into custody and Range Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 was lodged against the petitioner Anand Singh and others. (ix) The petitioners sought release of the vehicle by making an application to the respondent no. 2. (x) The petitioners did file Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1248 of 2019, Sri Anand Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was dismissed on 13.05.2019 (“the first petition”). (xi) The petitioners challenged the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in the first petition in Special Appeal No. 555 of 2019, Shri Anand Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was decided on 10.06.2019, with the liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent no. 2. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that the challan has yet not been submitted in the court by the Forest Authorities. The petitioners are owner of the timber that was seized on 01.07.2018; therefore, the order of seizure dated 01.07.2018 deserves to be set aside and the timber that has been seized should be released in favour of the petitioners. 5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. According to the respondents, though the petitioner no. 2 Anand Singh was granted permission to cut down 30 trees from his private land, but the trees were cut from the Government land; in vehicle No. UK-12CB-1622, permission was given by transit pass No. 14/18 for 155 logs of 4.147 cubic meters, whereas 280 logs of 9.733 cubic meters were seized in transition; the quantity of timber as given in transit pass was different than the timber that was seized. It is also the case of the respondents that the Revenue Officer also inquired into the matter and they found that against the permission of cutting down 60 trees (30 trees in the instant case and 30 trees in the connected case), total 116 trees were cut down, out of which 26 trees were cut down from the private land and 90 trees were cut down from the Government land; it is the Government property; forest offence has been committed. 6. 6. It is also the case of the respondent authorities that the charge sheet could not be submitted because the trial is stayed by the order of the court passed in C-482 No. 1164 of 2018, preferred by the petitioners and others; the representation that was given by the petitioners has already been decided on 03.05.2023, wherein it was recorded that the timber has already been confiscated in favour of the State on 12.07.2019, under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand (“the Act”) and no appeal under Section 52-B of the Act has been preferred by the petitioners. WP (M/S) No. 814 of 2022 7. Briefly stated, according to the petitioner, one Avatar Singh sought permission to cut down 30 trees of Khair standing on his land bearing Plot No. 3671, 3672, 3673, 3674, 3675, 3676 and 3677 situated at Village Banas, P.O. Kimsar, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal. The respondent no. 2 accorded permission to cut down the trees vide its order dated 25.05.2018. Thereafter the chronology is as follows:- (i) The trees were marked by the Forest Department on 27.05.2018. (ii) Avatar Singh sold the sanctioned trees to the petitioner Shobhit Thapliyal on 01.06.2018. (iii) After cutting the trees, the logs and other parts of the timber were measured by the Forest Department on 18.06.2018 and they found that the total produce were 253 logs ad measuring 9.090 cubic meters and roots to the tune of 70 quintals. (iv) On a request made, the respondent no. 2 permitted transportation of the logs in two trucks, by his communication dated 23.06.2018. (v) The petitioners were transporting the logs and other material in Truck No. UK 12 CB-0958 on 01.07.2018. (vi) The transit pass was accordingly issued on 01.07.2018. It had 127 logs of 4.419 cubic meters and roots to the tune of 35 quintals only. (vii) On the way, the truck was inspected by the Forest Authorities and it was found that it was carrying timber different than the transit pass, and more in quantity. It was carrying 291 logs of 10.150 cubic meters. (viii) Accordingly, the timber was taken into custody and Range Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 was lodged against the petitioner and others. (ix) Avatar Singh and the petitioner sought release of the vehicle by making an application to the respondent no. 2. It was carrying 291 logs of 10.150 cubic meters. (viii) Accordingly, the timber was taken into custody and Range Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 was lodged against the petitioner and others. (ix) Avatar Singh and the petitioner sought release of the vehicle by making an application to the respondent no. 2. (x) They did file Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1246 of 2019, Sri Avatar Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was dismissed on 13.05.2019 (“the second petition”). (xi) Avatar Singh and the petitioner challenged the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in the second petition in Special Appeal No. 554 of 2019, Shri Avtar Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was decided on 10.06.2019, with the liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent no. 2. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the challan has yet not been submitted in the court by the Forest Authorities. The petitioner is the owner of the timber that was seized on 01.07.2018; therefore, the order of seizure dated 01.07.2018 deserves to be set aside and the timber that has been seized should be released in favour of the petitioner. 9. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. According to the respondents, though Avatar Singh was granted permission to cut down 30 trees from his private land, but the trees were cut from the Government land; in vehicle No. UK-12CB-0958, permission was given by transit pass No. 14/13 for 127 logs of 4.419 cubic meters, whereas 291 logs of 10.150 cubic meters were seized in transition; the quantity of timber as given in transit pass was different than the timber that was seized. It is also the case of the respondents that the Revenue Officer also inquired into the matter and they found that against the permission of cutting down 60 trees (30 trees in the instant case and 30 trees in connected case), total 116 trees were cut down, out of which 26 trees were cut down from the private land and 90 trees were cut down from the Government land; it is the Government property; forest offence has been committed. 10. 10. It is also the case of the respondent authorities that the charge sheet could not be submitted because the trial is stayed by the order of the court passed in C-482 No. 1164 of 2018, preferred by the petitioner and others; the representation that was given by the petitioner has already been decided on 03.05.2023, wherein it was recorded that the timber has already been confiscated in favour of the State on 12.07.2019, under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand (“the Act”) and no appeal under Section 52-B of the Act has been preferred by the petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the owner of the timber that was seized by the forest authorities without any sanction of law; the seizure is illegal; in the special appeals, directions were given to the respondent authorities to decide the representation that may be given by the petitioners, but it was decided on 03.05.2023. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit the following arguments:- (i) A seizure may be made under Section 52-A of the Act only if there are reasons to believe that the forest offence has been committed. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the reasons to believe may not be arbitrary; in order to believe, there should be an opinion formed on the basis of objective assessment. On this aspect, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the principle of law as laid down in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Aryaverth Chawal Udyog and others, (2015) 17 SCC 324. In the case of Aryaverth Chawal Udyog (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows:- “28. This Court has consistently held that such material on which the assessing authority bases its opinion must not be arbitrary, irrational, vague, distant or irrelevant. It must bring home the appropriate rationale of action taken by the assessing authority in pursuance of such belief. In case of absence of such material, this Court in clear terms has held the action taken by the assessing authority on such “reason to believe” as arbitrary and bad in law. It must bring home the appropriate rationale of action taken by the assessing authority in pursuance of such belief. In case of absence of such material, this Court in clear terms has held the action taken by the assessing authority on such “reason to believe” as arbitrary and bad in law. In case of the same material being present before the assessing authority during both, the assessment proceedings and the issuance of notice for reassessment proceedings, it cannot be said by the assessing authority that “reason to believe” for initiating reassessment is an error discovered in the earlier view taken by it during original assessment proceedings. (See Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (1980) 4 SCC 71 : 1980 SCC (Tax) 348 .)” (ii) The respondent authorities have forged the transit pass. (iii) The petitioners are ready to give undertaking. (iv) A complaint was given against the respondent no. 2, the Divisional Forest Officer, Lansdowne Forest Division, Kotdwar, therefore, false implication has been done. (v) Timber is being deteriorated without any use, therefore, it should be released in favour of the petitioners. 13. On the other hand, learned State Counsel would submit that under the garb of some permissions, the petitioners have, in fact, cut the trees down from the Government land in large number; permission was granted to cut total 60 trees from the private land, but total 126 trees were cut down, out of which only 26 trees were cut down from the private land and 90 trees were cut down from the Government land. Learned State Counsel would submit that in both the petitions, transit passes were given for two trucks; the transit pass also bears the signature of the Forest Officer, in whose presence the trucks were loaded with the articles; when the trucks were loaded, the measurement of the articles were different than the measurement of the timber that was found at the time of seizure, which according to the learned State Counsel makes it clear that the petitioners did commit forest offence. 14. Learned State Counsel would further submit that the petitioners did file C-482 No. 1164 of 2018 challenging the proceedings of both the range case Nos. 14. Learned State Counsel would further submit that the petitioners did file C-482 No. 1164 of 2018 challenging the proceedings of both the range case Nos. Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 and 08 Laldhang/2018-19, in which stay order was passed on 17.07.2018 that no further proceeding shall be carried out in the range cases; in view of it, the court concerned did not accept the challan, which was presented by the Forest Authorities; timber has already been confiscated under Section 52-A of the Act on 12.07.2019; against the said order of confiscation, an appeal may be preferred under Section 52-B of the Act, but as such no appeal has been preferred under Section 52-B of the Act. 15. The learned State Counsel would also submit that the timber that has been seized is a case property, therefore, it is argued that there is no reason to interfere in the petitioners and they deserve to be dismissed. 16. In order to appreciate the controversy, the quantity and other details of the articles, in brief, are as follows:- WP (M/S) No. 813 of 2023 Sr. No. No. of trees for which permission was sought for felling down Measurement of the produce after felling the trees down Ravanna details transit pass details Seizure detail 1. 30 302 logs of 8.668 Cubic Metre; and Roots – 80 quintals (Annexure 4 is the measurement report) Ravanna order was passed on 30.06.2018, by which it was directed that the produce would be taken in two trucks. (Annexure 5 of the petition) Transit pass No. 14 dated 01.07.2018 permits transition of 155 logs of 4.147 cubic metres and roots 40 quintal in Truck No. UK-12- CB-1622. It was loaded in the presence of the Forest Officer, who signed it. (Transit pass is part of Annexure 5) On 01.07.2018, the vehicle was intercepted and total 280 logs of 9.733 cubic metres were seized (Annexure No.3 to the Counter Affidavit) WP (M/S) No. 814 of 2023 Sr. No. No. of trees for which permission was sought for felling down Measurement of the produce after felling the trees down Ravanna details transit pass details Seizure detail 1. 30 253 logs of 9.090 Cubic Metre; and Roots – 70 quintals (Annexure 4 is the measurement report) Ravanna order was passed on 30.06.2018, by which it was directed that the produce would be taken in two trucks. 30 253 logs of 9.090 Cubic Metre; and Roots – 70 quintals (Annexure 4 is the measurement report) Ravanna order was passed on 30.06.2018, by which it was directed that the produce would be taken in two trucks. (Annexure 5 of the petition) Transit pass No. 13 dated 01.07.2018 permits transition of 127 logs of 4.419 cubic metres and roots 35 quintal in Truck No. UK-12-CB0958. It was loaded in the presence of the Forest Officer, who signed it. (Transit pass is part of Annexure 5) On 01.07.2018, the vehicle was intercepted and total 291 logs of 10.150 cubic metres were seized (Annexure No.3 to the Counter Affidavit) 17. It is true that in WP (M/S) No. 813 of 2022, total produce is stated to be 302 logs of 8.668 cubic metres and 80 quintals roots, but it was to be transported in two trucks. One truck bearing Registration No. UK-12-CB-1622 was loaded on 01.07.2018 with 155 logs of 4.147 cubic metres and 40 quintals roots. If it is so, how on the same day in the same truck 280 logs of 9.733 cubic metres were found? How and when extra timber was loaded in the vehicle bearing No. UK-12-CB-1622? 18. Similarly, in WP (M/S) No. 814 of 2022, total produce is stated to be 253 logs of 9.090 cubic metres and 70 quintals roots, but it was to be transported in two trucks. One truck bearing Registration No. UK-12-CB-0958 was loaded on 01.07.2018 with 127 logs of 4.419 cubic metres and 35 quintals roots. If it is so, how on the same day in the same truck 291 logs of 10.150 cubic metres were found? How and when extra timber was loaded in the vehicle bearing No. K-12-CB-0958? 19. The representation that was made by the petitioners has already been rejected on 03.05.2023 and it records that the timber that was seized has been has been confiscated on 12.07.2019 under Section 52-A of the Act. Section 52-A of Act reads as follows:- “52-A. Procedure on seizure. 19. The representation that was made by the petitioners has already been rejected on 03.05.2023 and it records that the timber that was seized has been has been confiscated on 12.07.2019 under Section 52-A of the Act. Section 52-A of Act reads as follows:- “52-A. Procedure on seizure. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, where a forest offence is believed to have been committed in respect of any forest produce, which is the property of the State Government, the officer seizing the property under sub-section (1) of section 52 shall, without unreasonable delay, produce it together with all the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles used in committing the offence before an officer, not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer, authorised by the State Government in this behalf, who may, for reasons to be recorded, make an order in writing with regard to custody, possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of such property, and in case of tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, ropes, chains and other articles, may also confiscate them. (2) The authorised officer shall, without any undue delay, forward a copy of the order made under sub-section (1) to his official superior. (3) Where the authorised officer passing an order under sub-section (1) is of the opinion that the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, he may order the property or any part thereof to be sold by public auction and may deal with the proceeds as he would have dealt with such property if it had not been sold and shall report about every such sale to his official superior. (4) No order under sub-section (1) shall be made without giving notice, in writing, to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorised officer to have some interest in such property: Provided that in an order confiscating a vehicle, when the offender is not traceable, a notice in writing to the registered owner thereof and considering his objections if any will suffice. (5) No order of confiscation of any tool, boat, vehicle, cattle, ropes, chain or other article shall be made if any person referred to in sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that any such tool, boat, vehicle, rope, chain or other article was used without his knowledge or connivance or without the knowledge or connivance of his servant or agent, as the case may be, and that all reasonable precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for the commission of the forest offence.” 20. After seizure of the timber, the procedure for appeal is given under Section 52-B of the Act. It reads as hereunder:- “52-B Appeal. Any person aggrieved by an order of confiscation may, within thirty days of the date of communication to him of such order, prefer an appeal to the Conservator of Forests of the circle, who shall after giving an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and the authorised officer, pass such order as it may thing fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against and the order of the Conservator of Forests of the circle shall be final.” 21. The petitioners have not preferred any appeal against confiscation of the timber under Section 52-A of the Act. The confiscation of timber is a full-fledged process. It is a factual aspect. The confiscation order has not been put to challenge. What is under challenge is the seizure order. After confiscation of the timber, the seizure order, in fact, merged in the confiscation order. It has not been challenged. 22. At the first instance, the petitioners have not challenged the confiscation order dated 12.07.2019, which was passed under Section 52-A of the Act post seizure of the timber. In addition to it, the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy to challenge the confiscation order under Section 52-B of the Act and for that reason also the petitions cannot be entertained for a challenge made to the seizure order dated 01.07.2018. 23. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners have committed forest offence. There are two range cases relating to these petitions. They are Range Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 and Range Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018. Admittedly, the complaint has yet not been submitted in the court. 23. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioners have committed forest offence. There are two range cases relating to these petitions. They are Range Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 and Range Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018. Admittedly, the complaint has yet not been submitted in the court. It is the case of the respondent authorities that there has been a stay of this Court passed in C-482 No. 1164 of 2018. Therefore, the court concerned did not accept the challani report. 24. An order dated 17.07.2018 has been passed in C-482 No. 1164 of 2018. It reads as hereunder:- “Mr. Surendra Kumar Posti, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General for the State. Heard. Admit. This criminal misc. application has been filed for quashing the proceedings arising out of Range Case No.7 and 8 of 2018-19 State Vs. Anand Ballabh Thapliyal pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwara. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order. The perusal of the cognizance of remand order Annexure-2 passed by ACJM Kotdwara, it would reveal that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is passing the order in cyclostyle manner. The law does not permit to fill the remand sheet and pass orders on it superficially. The ACJM Kotdwara shall explain within three weeks as to why without application of mind he is passing such orders. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants and having gone through the documents on record, it is provided, as an interim measure that further proceedings of the Range Case No.7 and 8 of 2018-19 State Vs. Anand Ballabh Thapliyal pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwara shall remain stayed till the next date of listing. In the meantime, respondent no.2 may also file counter affidavit. List on 06.08.2018.” 25. This order dated 17.07.2018 has been extended also. It appears that some remand order was challenged in C-482 No. 1164 of 2018, in which further proceedings in Range Case Nos. Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 and 08 Laldhang/2018-19 have been stayed. The petitioners may very well proceed with the trial of the range cases by seeking vacation order and claim their innocence in the trial. It appears that some remand order was challenged in C-482 No. 1164 of 2018, in which further proceedings in Range Case Nos. Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 and 08 Laldhang/2018-19 have been stayed. The petitioners may very well proceed with the trial of the range cases by seeking vacation order and claim their innocence in the trial. In a writ petition, when a large number of factual aspects are disputed, findings may not be recorded that the petitioners are owner of the timber, which was seized from their possession on 01.07.2018. 26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not see any reason to make interference in the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 27. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.