BHAGWANDEEN GANGA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.6.2003 whereby the Respondent No. 2, Prescribed Authority/Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry) , Etawah, has seized the vehicle of the petitioner under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as amended by U.P. Act No. 1 of 2001 with effect from 16.4.2001. The order dated 8.3.2004, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected by the State of U.P., has also been challenged.

(2.) Briefly the facts of this case are that on 25.3.2003 a first information report was lodged by "Van Daroga" against four persons, namely, Narendra; Vijai Singh; Rajesh Kumar and Onkar for possessing coal made out from the forest wood which was loaded in truck No. URA 9714. The petitioner was not named in the first information report which was registered as Forest Crime No. 121/02-03 under Sections 26/52 and 55 of Indian Forest Act and Rule 3/28 of the corresponding Rules. Since the truck in question was owned by the petitioner, a notice dated 26.3.2003 was issued to him by the Respondent: No. 2, Prescribed Authority/Divisional Forest Officer (Social Forestry) , Etawah, under Section 52-A (4) of the Act to show cause why the vehicle No. UAR-9714 owned by the petitioner be not seized. The petitioner submitted his reply on 25.4.2003, in which it was categorically stated that the truck in question was hired by M/s Jai Shree Balaji Transport Commission Agency, Pakka Bagh, Kanpur Road, Ktawah and the original Builty No. 802 dated 25.3.2003 with regard to the same was enclosed along with the reply to the show cause notice. It was also categorically stated that the petitioner had no concern with the goods in question as the same belonged to the hirer, who were the accused persons named in the first information report dated 25.3.2003. The Respondent No. 2 thereafter passed an order on 16.6.2003 under Section 52-A of the Act directing seizure of the vehicle. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government under Section 52-B of the Act. By order dated 8.3.2004 the said appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) I have heard M/s O.P. Srivastava and Vaibhav Prakash Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.