SANJAY KUMAR SAW Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dtd. 17/2/2020 passed by the respondent no. 4 .. the Revisional Authority-cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Environment and Climate Change, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi in Confiscation Revision No. 02/2019, whereby the said revisional authority has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner confirming the order dtd. 20/8/2018 passed by the respondent no. 3 .. the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih in Confiscation Appeal No. 08/2017, who had upheld the order dtd. 28/5/2015 passed by the respondent no. 2 .. the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer, West Forest Division, Giridih in Confiscation Case No. 03/2014 arising out of Forest Case No. 126 of 2014 by which Tata Hywa vehicle of the petitioner bearing registration no. JH 12E 1513 along with 600 cft. stone chips loaded on it was confiscated. .

(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that on 10/6/2014, one Sheo Shankar Singh, a Forest Guard, submitted his report before the Forest Beat Officer, Balhara Beat, District-Giridih alleging that at about 2 pm, he along with other forest guards were on patrolling duty. In the meanwhile, he saw that 600 cft. illegally mined black stones were loaded over a Hywa having registration no. JH 12E 1513. After seeing the forest officials, the accused persons started fleeing away along with the said Hywa, however the same was ultimately stopped and seized at Jamua Pethandi Road. The matter was brought to the notice of the Range Officer, Doranda Afforestation Range, Giridih, who after perusal of the offence report, seizure list and the confessional statement of the accused persons, forwarded the same to the court of CJM, Giridih along with the arrested accused persons and thereafter Forest Case No. 126 of 2014 was registered. Moreover, Confiscation Case No. 03 of 2014 was initiated by the respondent no. 2 and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner which was replied by him contending that his vehicle was falsely dragged in the criminal case as well as in the said confiscation case after creating false and concocted story. The claim of the petitioner is that the said vehicle was loaded with only 500 cft. stone chips from M/s Santhal Stone Chips, which was wrongly recorded as stone boulders and was being transported to consignee Maa Gauri Stone Chips, Purnadih, Domchanch with valid Transport Challan No. A1 5990288 issued for dispatch of the said material on 10/6/2014 at 10.15 am. Further claim of the petitioner is that in spite of the production of Challan, the forest officials seized 500 cft. stone chips along with the said Hywa vehicle. The respondent no. 2 finally passed order on 28/5/2015 of confiscation of the said Hywa with alleged 600 cft. stone boulders loaded on it. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Confiscation Appeal No. 8/2017 before the respondent no. 3, however, the same was dismissed on 20/8/2018. The petitioner also preferred revision application being Revision Case No. 02/2019 before the respondent no. 4, which was also dismissed vide impugned order dtd. 17/2/2020. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 2 passed the order of confiscation of the said Hywa without considering the relevant material facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that under RTI, the Assistant Mining Officer, Giridih furnished an attested copy of Form D Transport Challan (Transporter's Copy) having Serial No. A1 5990288 dtd. 10/6/2014 with the Form H dtd. 15/7/2014 i.e., the form of Monthly Return for minerals for the month of June 2014 mentioning the name of lessee/permit holder as M/s Santhal Stone Chips, which dispatched 1500 cft. stone chips through various challans in which the number of Transport challan of the seized stone chips of the petitioner was also mentioned. It is further submitted that stone chips were transported legally and the same were not forest produce. The seizure list dtd. 10/6/2014 did not mention the seizure of black stone, it rather mentioned the seizure of said Hywa only. No notification was brought on record to suggest that the place of seizure was a notified forest area. The petitioner is the owner of the said Hywa and he has not been made accused in the connected criminal case. The respondent no. 2 called for a report from the Range Officer, Doranda Afforestation Range, Giridih regarding genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner including Mining Transport Challan issued by M/s Santhal Stone Chips with regard to 500 cft. stone chips and thereafter the said officer submitted his report stating that all the original documents of seized Hywa were inspected with the help of Forest Beat Officer, Balhara Beat, District-Giridih and were found genuine, however, all these documents were not produced by the driver of said Hywa at the time of seizure of the vehicle. The respondent no. 2 on receipt of the said report, however, finding the same contradictory and not clear, asked him vide memo no. 1005 dtd. 8/10/2014 to make spot enquiry to verify as to whether the seized stones were mined from any quarry or from notified forest area. Thereafter, no such enquiry was made by the Range Officer, Doranda Afforestation Range, Giridih and thus it cannot be said that the respondent no. 2 had sufficient material before him for passing the impugned order of confiscation.