High CourtsSingle Bench

Ram Prasad Sah vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 18 December 2003 · Citation: (2004) 1 JCR 406

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amareshswar Sahay, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1990 — Section 52(3) · Forest Act, 1927 — Section 2(4)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 5927 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 277 words

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

2.

The truck of the petitioner bearing Registration No. BRM 9495 was apprehended from the side plot No. 248 of Dhobidihi Protected Forest while transporting coal illegally. The Divisional Forest Officer, Giridih, Forest Division, Giridih. By his order dated 29.4.1994 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application specifically held that the truck was carrying coal and forest produce defined u/s 2(4)(a) and 2(4)(b)(iv) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. As the truck was found carrying coal from Dhobidih notified and demarcated forest area, therefore, the order for confiscation u/s 53(3) of Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 was passed.

3.

The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-District Magistrate, Giridih who by his order dated 30.7.1996 dismissed the appeal on merit after considering the respective cases of the parties.

4.

Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Govt. of Jharkhand, who by his order dated 14.8.2001 in exercise of power of revision passed an order after discussing in detail the facts and points involved in this case and after perusal of the order of the D.F.O. dismissed the revision application. Since all the three Courts have given specific findings on the question of the fact that the coal in question which was forest produce was being transported illegally from in side plot No. 248 of Dhobidihi protected forest, I am not inclined to interfere with the specific findings given by the three authorities on the point of facts in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Accordingly this writ application is dismissed.