Patna High CourtCWJC/5582/2012disposed

Pinki Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ANR

2016-12-07Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5582 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Pinki Devi W/O Sri Shambhu Giri R/O Village- Jamheta, P.O.- Fatehpur, P.S.- Fatehpur, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Environment And Forest, Government Of Bihar

2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Vinay Mistry, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 07-12-2016 The writ application has been filed for quashing of the order, contained in Memo No. 3303 dated 12.12.2011, issued by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya whereby the petitioner has been asked to deposit 15% cash i.e. Rs. 47,420/- and the balance amount of Rs. 2, 68,701/- as Bank Guarantee in the name of Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya for release of Tata Magic Vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR02M-8076.

I find that the order, dated 12.12.2011, has been passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya Forest Division, Gaya in terms of the order, dated

Patna High Court CWJC No.5582 of 2012 (7) dt.07-12-2016 2/2 27.09.2011, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14182 of 2011. By the said order, this Court directed that the vehicle, in question, may be released in favour of the petitioner, if he deposits 15% of the value of the vehicle in cash and the rest by way of Bank Guarantee. As the petitioner did not deposit the aforesaid amount, the said vehicle was not released. By now much water has flown and confiscation proceeding also stands concluded.

The petitioner, if so, advised may challenge the order passed in confiscation proceeding before the appropriate authority.

Accordingly, writ application is disposed of. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) ajaypd./- U