Mustak Mohammed Alias Mustak Ahmed vs State Of H.P & Anr

Sandeep Sharma, J

Instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lays challenge to the order dated 20.09.2019, passed by respondent No.2, whereby an application for release of vehicle having been filed by the petitioner came to be rejected.

Mr. Kunal Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record instructions received from the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Hamirpur Forest Circle, Hamirpur, H.P., perusal whereof itself reveals that opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the applicant by the authority concerned while disposing of the application for release of the vehicle allegedly involved in the illegal transportation of timber.

Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner, as has been reflected in the petition at hand is that Authorized Officer-cum -DFO, while rejecting the prayer having been made on behalf of petitioner neither granted opportunity of being heard nor took into consideration provisions contained under the Act i.e. Indian Forest Act,1927.

Close scrutiny of impugned order dated 20.09.2019, clearly suggests that the authority concerned without their being any application of mind disposed of the application filed by petitioner for release of vehicle, that too without affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant. No cogent and convincing reason has been assigned in the aforesaid order passed by the authorized officer and as such, same is not sustainable in the eye of law. Though, respondents have cited the reasons as well as law for not releasing the vehicle in question in the instruction placed on record before this Court pursuant to order dated 28.10.2020, but since same never came to be incorporated or dealt with by the authority concerned while passing the impugned order, impugned order cannot be said to be legal.

Consequently, in view of the above, impugned order dated 20. 9.2020 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and set aside and authorized Officer- cum-DFO is directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with the law.

Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass speaking order stating therein reasons for allowing or rejecting the application. The authority concerned while deciding the application shall take into consideration the report of the police. Since the vehicle of the petitioner is in the custody of police for the last one year, this Court hopes and trust that authority concerned shall take appropriate decision, in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week.

Learned Deputy Advocate General undertakes to apprise the authority concerned with regard to passing of the instant order, enabling him to do the needful well within stipulated time.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Copy dasti.