STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR Vs. SUSHMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, through the medium of this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, have assailed an order dtd. 7/5/2007 (impugned order) passed by learned Sessions Judge Udhampur (hereinafter called 'revisional court') whereby in Criminal Revision No.15/2006 titled Sushma Devi v. State and Anr. quashed the order dtd. 19/12/2006 passed by petitioner no.2-Divisional Forest Officer, Udhampur Forest Division in terms of which vehicle No.JK02W-7382 (Tipper) owned by the respondent Sushma Devi was confiscated under Sec. 26 of the Jammu and Kashmir Forest Act, 1987 for having been used in the commission of offences under the Forest Act as the vehicle was found having been used for transporting Resin Tins from Panchari Range illegally.

(2.) The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the Revisional Court had passed the order on some presumptions of not having served notice of confiscation to the registered owner of the vehicle even though notice issued had been published in two leading daily newspapers but the respondent chose not to appear before the authorized officer i.e. DFO, Udhampur Forest Division on the appointed dates; that once the vehicle was confiscated by the authorized officer, the respondent emerged on the scene and put up a case that she was totally unaware of the confiscation proceedings, whereas fact of the matter was that she had no answer to the question, as to why she did not appear before the authorized officer after the publication of the news item; that even if something wrong was found by the Revisional Court, the order was required to be quashed but by virtue of the impugned order the Revisional Court had also released the Tipper in question, thereby barging into the exclusive domain of the authorized officer.

(3.) Pursuant to notice, the counter affidavit was filed by the respondent raising a legal objection to the filing of this petition by a quasi judicial authority and without having been authorized by the government, as an authority cannot maintain a writ petition in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 2007 (8) SCC 254. It has also been pleaded that no summons or notice had been issued to the respondent as owner of the seized vehicle as she had no role in any offence committed by one Govind Ram who had hired the vehicle from respondent; that the proceedings initiated and conducted by the authorized officer were at the back of the respondent, as such, she had no knowledge of the confiscation proceedings; that the notice purported to have been issued in newspaper, on a bare look cannot be termed as a notice, as it was only a news item. Moreover, the respondent was not conversant with English language and can neither read nor understand the same; that the confiscation proceedings conducted at the back of the respondent were violative of the principles of natural justice besides being violative of statutory protection available to an owner of vehicle under Forest Act. It was finally prayed that the petition be dismissed.