BHAGBAN SINGH PARMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging confiscation proceedings and that order contained in Annexure P/5, dtd. 15/1/2025, by which petitioner was not allowed to engage an Advocate in the case.

(2.) Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is not provided documents of the case so that he can file the proper application opposing confiscation of the vehicle. Counsel appearing for petitioner further submitted that there is no bar in Sec. 52 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 to stop an Advocate to appear for his client before authorized officer doing confiscation proceedings. It is submitted that in judgment reported in 2012 (2) MPLJ 453, Kuldeep Sharma vs. State of M.P., as a corollary, Court has stated that Advocates may not appear as no evidence is to be recorded.

(3.) Government Advocate appearing for respondents/State opposes the prayer and submitted that Advocate cannot appear in proceedings for confiscation in view of the judgment passed by this Court reported in Kuldeep Sharma (supra). Permission to engage counsel has rightly been rejected under Sec. 52. It is submitted that there is no cause of action to challenge confiscation proceedings.