DILIP KUMAR MAHTO, S/O OF LATE HARICHARAN MAHTO, RESIDENT OF RAMGARH RS. RAMGARH, DISTRICT HAZARIBAGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was seized on the allegation that it was involved in the forest offence of transportation of illicit timber. The petitioner pleaded that he was not aware of the fact that the vehicle was being used for illegal transportation of the forest produce. The Divisional Forest Officer found on an enquiry, that in addition, to the driver, a relative of the owner was also present in the vehicle at the time of transportation of the forest produce and at the time of seizure. The Divisional Forest Officer, rejecting the case of the owner that he was not aware of the illicit transport of timber, held that a forest offence has been committed and passed an order for confiscation. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority. Apparently the only aspect urged before the appellate authority was that the value of the timber that was transported illegally was meager compared with the value of the vehicle, the confiscation of the vehicle ought not to have been ordered. The Appellate Authority upheld that plea and that the confiscation was illegal and directed the release of the vehicle by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. The argument of counsel for (he department that the vehicle could not be released in that manner was brushed aside, by the Appellate Authority who relied on the decision of a Single Bench of the Patna High Court. The Divisional Forest Officer concerned took up the matter in revision. The Revisional Authority found that the appellate authority had acted illegally in setting aside the order of confiscation. He found that the appellate authority has erred in following a Single Bench decision of the Patna High Court when the decision has been overruled by the decision of a Division Bench rendered on 6.2.1998. Finding that a forest offence was involved and it was proved, the Revisional Authority modified the order of the appellate authority, and restored the order of the original authority ordering confiscation of the vehicle.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Revisional Authority, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.