RAJESH KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ applications have been filed for quashing the seizure dated 28.10.2004 by which the truck loaded with Sawn Sisam bearing registration no. HR 38J 9285, and Truck bearing registration no. HR 38K 0981 loaded with panel Board and side patti have been seized in course of inter State movement. Prayer is also for quashing the consequential confiscation proceeding initiated, if any.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the seizure of the truck and articles loaded on the trucks, on the ground that the State Government and the authorities of the Forest Department have no power or authority to stop inter -State movement and transportation of sisam and other forest produce particularly when the State Government has not made rules regulating the movement of timbers and forest produce out of the State, in exercise of powr conferred under Section 41 of the Indin forest Act, 1927. Seizure by the authority has been challenged because no rule has been framed by the State and the seizure is in violation of the order passed in the reported decision in the case of M/s. Bhartiya and sons V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2001(4) PLJR 411].

(3.) PETITIONER no. 1 in both the cases stated that they are licensee under the provisions of the Bihar Saw Mill Regulation, 1990. Their case is that they maintain regular stock register, duly verified by the Forest Officer from time to time. They used to file return in Form -D to the Divisional Forest Officer in accordance with the rules informing all dispatches outside the State. Retuns filed by them indicated sales in course of inter -State trade. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 14985 of 2004 received order for supply of sawn sisam from Sri Mahabir Timber, Sridungergarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. Petitioner no. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 15845 of 2004 received order from M/s Rajdhani Crafts, Jaipur, Rajasthan for supply of panel board and sisam side patti etc. Petitioner no. 1 in both cases engaged trucks bearing Registration No. HR 38J 9285 and No. HR -38K/0981 respectively through Sati Road lines, Sursand Road, Sitamarhi for transportation of goods and loaded with consignment. The petitioners intimated the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Bihar by filing an application that the consignment is going to be transported to Rajasthan as per the sale agreement and hence in view of judgment and order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9632 of 2001. M/s Bhartiya and Sons V/s. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2001(4) PLJR 411 though there is no requirement of transit permit, even though if the department intends to issue any permits for the said consignment, the same be issued to them. No receipt was granted by the office of the respondent no. 3. The driver and Khalasi were provided with all relevant papers relating to the consignment i.e. Chalan, invoice, road permit in Form XXVIIB and similar for Rajasthan. Road permit in Form XXVIIB issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, State of Bihar and similar for Rajasthan bearing details relating to the consignment, showing inter -State movement/transportation from Bihar to Rajasthan. In the morning of 28.10.2004 the trucks were stopped by the Forester, Runnisaidpur, though the Divisional Forest Officer had already been intimated about the transaction and the consignment loaded on the truck. As the transaction related to inter -State sale, the Divisional Forest Officer had verbally been informed that since the State Government has not framed any rule relating to prescribed transit permit for inter -State sale the trucks loaded with consignment cannot be stopped from moving its final destination, for want of prescribed transit permit as the same cannot be issued for transaction. Even though above facts were known to the Forester, he detained the truck and a false case for alleged violation of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was framed. The truck alongwith loaded consignment were shown seized on 28.10.2004 and the report was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi. The driver of the truck produced all relevant documents and papers concerning the consignment which were duly received by the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Tirhut Forest Division, Muzaffarpur, respondent no. 4, but for the reasons best known it was not mentioned in the invoice.