Parmanand Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.377 of 2015 =========================================================== Satish Kumar Singh son of Late Ramanugrah Singh, resident of Gobardhanpur, P.S.- Akhorigola, Dist.- Rohtas (Sasaram).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
2. The Principal Seceretary, Department of Environment and Forest, Bihar at Patna.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer cum Authorized Officer, District - Rohtas at Sasaram.
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Dehri, P.S.- Dehri Town, District - Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 420 of 2015 =========================================================== Birendra Prasad Gupta son of Mahesh Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Top Gate, Kohima (Nagaland), at present resident of Village- Garhani, P.S.- Garhani, DistrictBhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram
3. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Sasaram, Rohtas .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 537 of 2015 =========================================================== Bhaiya Ram Singh son of Late Mohan Singh, resident of village- Mahadeva, P.O. Jamuhar, P.S. Dehri, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram
3. The Divisional Forest officer-cum- Authorised officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Sasaram, Rohtas
.... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 896 of 2015 =========================================================== Parmanand Sah son of Late Panna Sah, resident of Village-Kuddi, P.S.-Chand, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram.
3. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer, Rohtas Forest Division Sasaram, Rohtas.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance:
(In CWJC No. 377 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Aashish, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.R.K. Pandey, SC-29 (In CWJC No. 420 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, G.A.-3 (In CWJC No. 537 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha , Advocate (In CWJC No. 896 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.R. K Pandey, S.C.-29 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since in each of these cases the relief prayed by the petitioners is identical hence they have been taken up together for analogous hearing and final disposal with the consent of the parties. The petitioners in each of the writ petitions seek a direction
to the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, District-Rohtas at Sasaram under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for provisional release of their respective vehicle pending adjudication of the confiscation proceedings. In each of these cases the vehicle of these petitioners stands seized on grounds of alleged violation of the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and which has led to institution of the Forest Case which is now pending consideration in respective confiscation proceedings before the Authorized Officer who happens to be the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas.
The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the respective petitioners is that keeping the vehicles under the open sky to face the vagaries of the weather would serve no purpose and would only turn them obsolete rendering them useless for any future use and which would benefit none rather it would only result in loss. Learned counsel for the respective petitioners have stated that the petitioners would not be creating any third party right nor they would alienate the vehicle pending disposal of the respective confiscation case and that they would produce the vehicle as and when required in the confiscation proceedings. It is also the contention of learned counsel that release petitions have also been filed before the statutory authority but has remained pending in most
of the cases and thus these writ petitions. The individual details of the petitioner in each of the writ petitions are given hereinbelow. (1). C.W.J.C. No. 377 of 2015 In this case the two vehicles of the petitioner bearing Registration No. UP 65H-0721, Engine No. 697A2HGTQ127919, Chassis No. 366044GUQ117627 and Registration No. UP65R-7185, Engine No. 622DO404099, Chassis No. 364073390683 were seized on allegations of transporting stone chips without any supportive papers giving rise to Dehri (T) P.S. Case No. 245 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 59 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram. (2). C.W.J.C. No. 420 of 2015 In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No.
NL01K6188 was seized on allegations of transporting stone chips without any supportive papers giving rise to Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 240 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 104 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.
(3). C.W.J.C. No. 537 of 2015 In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration
No. JH02E-0381 was seized on allegations of transporting forest produce without any supportive papers giving rise to Forest Case No. 58 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 73 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officercum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram. (4). C.W.J.C. No. 896 of 2015 In this case the vehicle of the petitioner bearing Registration No. JH-12B/5593 was seized on allegations of transporting constructed sill (stone materials) without any supportive papers giving rise to Forest Case No. 74 of 2014 which has led to registration of Confiscation Case No. 99 of 2014 pending adjudication before the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas at Sasaram.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record.
As I have taken note of hereinabove, the vehicles of these petitioners stand seized on allegation of being loaded with illegally mined stone chips. Though learned counsel for the respective petitioners have tried to defend the load carried on each of the vehicles but considering that the matter is pending adjudication before the statutory authority, this Court would express no opinion thereon. However taking note of the circumstances that these vehicles are lying
unattended under the open sky to face the vagaries of weather, this Court is of the opinion that allowing these vehicles to turn obsolete would benefit none rather it would only lead to losses and thus this Court would deem fit and proper to order for the provisional release of the vehicles subject to furnishing of supporting papers of ownership and security as deem fit and proper by the authorized officer and which release obviously would be subject to final outcome of the confiscation proceedings. In the circumstances discussed, this Court would direct the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division, Rohtas cum Authorized Officer under the Forest Act, 1927 in seisin of the respective confiscation cases which are subject matter of the present proceedings to order for the release of the respective vehicles in favour of the petitioners within eight weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of the order subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions.
(a) The petitioner shall produce all original papers supporting the ownership of the vehicle in question including the registration papers, the insurance paper, the tax token and the pollution certificate.
(b) The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that he shall not alienate the vehicle or transfer the vehicle in favour of any third party during the pendency of the
confiscation proceedings and shall produce the vehicle as and when required in the confiscation proceedings.
(c) The petitioner shall furnish such security as deem fit and proper by the Divisional Forest Officercum-Authorized Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram which shall neither be in the form of cash nor bank guarantee; and (d) The release of the vehicle shall be governed by the final outcome of the confiscation proceedings.
With the observations and directions aforementioned, the writ petitions are disposed of.
(Jyoti Saran, J) S.Sb/- U