Birender Kumar Roy vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to AAG for the State.

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 27.08.1999 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Confiscation Case No. 5 of 1999 and 6 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the Trucks bearing nos. BR-18/9677 and BR-18/6777 have been confiscated in Forest Offence Case No. 2P of 1999. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order dated 03.04.2006 passed in Confiscation Appeal No. 108 of 2000 by the respondent no. 3 as well as the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by the respondent no. 4 in Confiscation Revision No. 2/Van/Mu (c) 30/2006 by which the order passed by the Confiscating authority has been affirmed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is the registered owner of Trucks bearing nos. BR-18/9677 and BR-18/6777 which was seized by the forest officials on the allegation of carrying illegal forest produce. After seizure of trucks, confiscation proceeding was initiated in Confiscation Proceeding Nos. 5/1999 and 6/1999 and by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Forest Division, Jamshedpur, and finally the vehicles of the petitioner were confiscated. The same was affirmed upto the Revisional Authority. Since an interim order was passed by the Revisional Authority with respect to the interim release of the trucks in question, the petitioner had approached in W.P.(C) No.84 of 2002 and vide order dated 16.04.2002, this Court had directed release of the vehicles in question by furnishing security bonds as per the order of the appellate authority together with a bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. two lacs for each of the vehicle to the satisfaction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dhalbhum Forest Division, Jamshedpur. It was further indicated that the appellate authority shall attempt to expedite the disposal of the appeal case. He further submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 84 of 2002, the petitioner had furnished bank guarantee of two lacs and two vehicles were released which he was plying, but by the efflux of time, the same has become scrap. It has therefore, been prayed that the bank guarantee be encashed by the Forest Officers and since both trucks are lying idle, the petitioner seeks permission to sell his trucks as scrap.

Learned A.C. to AAG has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has stated that since the petitioner was found carrying Teak wood without any permit and beyond the quantity as per the transit permit, both the vehicles were rightly seized and confiscated. It has further been stated that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be accepted as it is not known as to whether the vehicles in question have become scrap or not.

The allegation which was levelled and which led to confiscation of the trucks in question was that truck no. BR-18/9677 was found carrying 15.5993 tones of 171 pieces of Saal wood against the volume of 8.6310 M3 indicated in the transit permit. So far as the truck bearing registration no. BR-18/6777 is concerned, it contained more volume of Teak wood, although there is no mention of the same in the transit permit. Therefore, it was rightly concluded that the vehicles were transporting wood without there being any valid permit and the same being unaccounted for, led to confiscation of the vehicles in question. Although, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner be permitted to sell the trucks in question since it has turned into scrap, but the said offer cannot be accepted simply on the ground that the trucks were released in favour of the petitioner by furnishing a bank guarantee as indicated in the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 84 of 2002 and it has been proved beyond doubt that the trucks in question were carrying wood beyond the transit permit, therefore, the same was rightly considered as a forest offence and confiscation was accordingly done. Moreover, the order which was passed in W.P.(C) No. 84 of 2002 was by way of interim measure when the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of confiscation was already pending before the Deputy Commissioner and once the appeal has been disposed of as well as the subsequent revision, which had been filed by the petitioner, question of permitting the petitioner to be still in possession of the trucks in question does not arise.

In the circumstances denoted above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders and accordingly this writ application stands disposed of.