NAVEEN CHAND vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and quash the order dated 17.05.2014 passed by the respondent

no. 2 and the order dated 15.07.2014 passed by the respondent no. 3 (contained as annexure No. 3 and 5 of the writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to release the Vehicle (Chotta Hati)

Registration No. U.K 04 CA-6394 of the petitionerâ€​.

2.  It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the Chotta Hati, bearing registration no.U.K 04 CA-

6394. It is stated that the said vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the forest department in connection with the recovery of wood of Sagwan tree

and Misc. Case No. 43/Bankheda/2013-14 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner admitted the offence and applied for the release of

his vehicle. On 17.05.2014, the respondent no. 2 passed the judgment under Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act (Uttaranchal Amendment 2001)

and confiscated the vehicle of the petitioner. Against the order dated 17.05.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3.Â

On 15.07.2014, the respondent no. 3 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.  Hence, this writ petition.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question and he has nothing to do with the said

wood. He submitted that the said vehicle was seized on 17.03.2014 and the same will get damaged, inasmuch as, the petitioner is not in a position to

use it due to its detainment. He submitted that the said vehicle has been purchased by the petitioner on loan and, if the same is not released at the

earliest, in that event, the petitioner will not be able to pay its installments within time. He submitted that the petitioner is ready to give an

undertaking before the Magistrate concerned.Â

Learned Deputy Advocate General admitted the facts what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that only

thing is this that the said vehicle was carrying the wood of Sagwan tree.Â

I have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the view that in case the said vehicle is detained for long,

the said vehicle will get damaged and, thus, the petitioner has right to get the said vehicle plied. Â

Considering the above-stated facts, it is directed that in case petitioner approaches the competent authority for the release of his vehicle by way of

filing a representation within a period of fifteen days from today, the competent authority shall decide the same, in accordance with law, within a

period of two weeks from the date of filing of representation along with the certified copy of this order. Competent authority will be at liberty to

impose such condition, which it deems fit in the matter, so that department’s interest be also protected.Â

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.