BABU LAL JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issue of appropriate writ for quashment of the proceeding in question and the decision taken by the respondents which has led to passing of the impugned order of confiscation of the wooden slabs belonging to them and further to grant any other relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner No. 1 is a resident of village Garhi Tah. Gairatganj, Distt. Raisen and is the father of petitioner No. 2 who is a resident of Bhopal. The said petitioner with a view to construct a house, purchased a plot in Bhopal from J. P. Grah Nirman Samiti. One Dheeraj Kumar resident of village Garhi Tah. Gairatganj, Distt. Raisen, intended to sell that superstructure. The petitioner No. 1 purchased that superstructure because it had lot of wooden structure. The same was purchased for Rs. 6500/ -. After dismantling the old structure the petitioner collected the wooden slabs therefrom. The petitioner No. 2 applied for grant of transit Pass for transportation of those wooden slabs from Village Garhi to Bhopal to the Sub Divisional Forest Officer. Alongwith the said application a list of wooden slabs for construction of the house was also enclosed. The Sub Divisional Forest Officer directed the Range Officer to issue the transit Pass for transportation of wooden slabs in question. Despite personal request and approach, the Range Officer did not issue the transit pass. Instead of issuance of transit Pass the Range Officer seized the wooden slabs belonging to the petitioner No. 2 to harrass them. Being aggrieved by the order of seizure the petitioner filed an application for release of the seized material before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisen who directed the respondents to release the material immediately in favour of the petitioners. The aforesaid order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was called in question before the Sessions Judge, Raisen. It is pleaded that the authority with malafide intention on one hand preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge and on the other initiated a proceeding for confiscation which was not illegal but unwarranted in view of the challenge in the criminal revision. It has been urged that powers under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act cannot be taken recourse to after the release of property by the Magistrate. It has been pleaded that after intiating the proceeding for confiscation the authority withdrew the revision and completed the confiscation proceedings. It has been putforth that when the criminal revision was withdrawn the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate attained finality but the proceeding for confiscation was completed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of confiscation the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Conservator of Forest but it was dismissed. Eventually the matter travelled to this Court forming the subject matter of WP. No. 140 of 1996 which was dismissed in limine by order dated 11-4-97. It has been setforth in the petition that this Court was not apprised of the fact that during pendency of the criminal revision a proceeding for confiscation could not have been initiated and hence the order of this Court came into existence. It is also pleaded that the whole action of the respondents is reeked with malafide and the petitioner, therefore, is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

(3.) I have heard Mr. V. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners for the purpose of admission.